Environmental Concern?

[mesurman]

No, they are not to blame. But some international solidarity can go a long way. And when the world’s biggest polluter doesn’t sign up to the program it doesn’t help the process now does it.

Other countries set an example. Take Norway, they have a goal to be carbon neutral by 2050.

Compare the efficiency of European (and Japanese) cars to those of the US for example.

Why can those countries make progress but not the USA?

We should all hug and tell each other that everything will be okay.

We need big gas guzzlers in America because we work hard and need hard working vehicles that may not get as good mileage as other cars, so be it. I began to read the report that your link sent me to, a bunch of fluff by a group of scientists glad handing each other. No real science, just misinterpreted observations. How come the Atlantic Ocean is warmer than usual and the Pacific Ocean is cooler than usual. Doesn’t Global Warming mean the whole Globe and not just certain parts? I think you just like to argue. I think that you do not like Americans very much. As for
progress we have had the clean air and water act since the early 1970’s and the country has been getting cleaner every year since. We have more environmental regulations in this country than you can possibly believe, but in the name of Environmentalism we should have more, more, more… Enough is enough.

 

[thomfra]

We should all hug and tell each other that everything will be okay.

We need big gas guzzlers in America because we work hard and need hard working vehicles that may not get as good mileage as other cars, so be it. I began to read the report that your link sent me to, a bunch of fluff by a group of scientists glad handing each other. No real science, just misinterpreted observations. How come the Atlantic Ocean is warmer than usual and the Pacific Ocean is cooler than usual. Doesn’t Global Warming mean the whole Globe and not just certain parts? I think you just like to argue. I think that you do not like Americans very much. As for
progress we have had the clean air and water act since the early 1970’s and the country has been getting cleaner every year since. We have more environmental regulations in this country than you can possibly believe, but in the name of Environmentalism we should have more, more, more… Enough is enough.

Ok. I asked you to read the reports and tell me what specifically you have problems with. You come back with “just a bunch of scientist glad handling each other”, and “we need gas guzzlers because we work hard”…

I don’t think you really know much about the topic we are discussing, about the weather, carbon cycles, heat and mass balances or anything which may give you a solid basis for argument. Thanks for a most enlightening conversation!

 

[mesurman]

You do not spout anything enlightening sir, only the rehashed jiberish of the leftist environmentalists. I can assure you that I have firm grip on the situation here in America. You clearly do not.
In fact you probably know very little. I read enough of the report to see it for it’s true value, junk science, not based on reality. Are you a junk scientist?

 

[Oscarthecat]

No, they are not to blame. But some international solidarity can go a long way. And when the world’s biggest polluter doesn’t sign up to the program it doesn’t help the process now does it.

Other countries set an example. Take Norway, they have a goal to be carbon neutral by 2050.

Compare the efficiency of European (and Japanese) cars to those of the US for example.

Why can those countries make progress but not the USA?

International Solidarity?

For crying out loud.

What is that? An international guilt trip?

If this was really about reducing pollution output and setting a good example for the rest of the world, then the countries that signed onto the Kyoto protocol would have been perfectly capable of managing their own internal affairs to reduce their own emissions without the US needing to be involved at all.
In fact, the EU could have improved international solidarity by becoming the shining example of energy efficiency, and in doing so might have encouraged more nations to join in their efforts.

But that didn’t happen because CO2 reduction was just a front used to distract the public from Kyoto’s real purpose.

The Kyoto protocol’s primary objective was to impose economic sanctions in the form of wealth redistribution on the wealthiest and most productive countries, while essentially ignoring massive pollution increases by “developing nations,” in order to set the precedent for an international tax imposed by the UN based on CO2 production under the guise of “carbon credits.”

Of course, it kind of threw a wrench in the works when the most powerful nation on the planet refused to play along.

The Kyoto Treaty is an insult to International Solidarity.

 

[cynic]

Scientists don’t know for certain why the earth has gone through massive environmental changes in the past, they don’t know the pattern of these changes, how long they take to occur, or how to predict them- much less what to do about it if one were to happen. They also don’t know if we are in a massive climate change right now, or if we are simply experiencing a normal period of warming, which will be followed by a normal period of cooling, and so forth.

The bottom line is that the science is definitely not in on Global Warming.

If you has a serious look at how the polar icecaps have shrunk, you might think otherwise.

 

[Oscarthecat]

If you has a serious look at how the polar icecaps have shrunk, you might think otherwise.

30+ years ago the scientists declared our inevitable doom due to the icecaps GROWING out of control. Now we’re all doomed because they’re shrinking?

Could it be that the icecaps will always shrink in some areas, grow in others, freeze, refreeze, shift, move, break, and so on? After all, they’re made of ice. That’s pretty much what ice does.

Do you think that any of the active vocanoes under the ice shelf might contribute to that cycle?

I linked to articles about all of this earlier- you should check them out.

 

[Biggie]

30+ years ago the scientists declared our inevitable doom due to the icecaps GROWING out of control. Now we’re all doomed because they’re shrinking?

Man you just read my mind. I was just thinking I am old enough to remember the 70’s when we were facing the next ice age, right about the same time we were going to run out of gasoline in a decade and were shutting off the lights on every other floor of public buildings to conserve. Then the malais of the Ameican people was to blame. There was a brief recess somewhere in there and then bam! In comes global warming. I actually think what drives this kind of thing is that Plymouth Rock Puritan strand in the country that needs to feel guilt in prosperity.

What you scientists out there are dealing with are a lot of dumb average people like me with memories and a healthy distrust of politics. Kyoto smells to me like a George Soros type attempt to redistribute wealth on a worldwide basis. A lot of the proposed cures for global warming seem worse than the condition, and we now have ourselves in a position where we cannot exploit our own resources, are dependent on our adversaries for our economic life and hate the product around which our economy is built.

Meanwhile, even if it were certain human activity was producing global warming, which does not seem to be the case, it is far from certain if any moderation of activity will really change things at all. And this is a basis to disassemble our economy and promote widespread worldwide levelling of accomplishment?

 

[thomfra]

You do not spout anything enlightening sir, only the rehashed jiberish of the leftist environmentalists. I can assure you that I have firm grip on the situation here in America. You clearly do not.
In fact you probably know very little. I read enough of the report to see it for it’s true value, junk science, not based on reality. Are you a junk scientist?

Again I ask. What specifically in the report did you have problems understanding?

 

[mesurman]

Again I ask. What specifically in the report did you have problems understanding?

Duh. I specifically understand that the report is biased and is based on flawed agenda driven scientists. What part of that specifically do you not understand.

Someone mentioned polar ice caps. Where I live, say about ten thousand years ago or so our entire state was covered in a three mile thick glacier, long before manmade devices were utilized i.e. factories, automobiles and trucks, etc. How did the glaciers form in the first place and how did they melt? Solar activity? Hmmmm.

Like I have said two or three times now look ar geologic history and warming and cooling has been going on for millions of years.
It is very simple. Maybe too simple for some people to grasp.

Let’s get real. Global Warming Hysteria is a manmade phenomena designed by liberal environmentalists to achieve their
socialist agenda goals.

 

[ribozyme]

What you scientists out there are dealing with are a lot of dumb average people like me with memories and a healthy distrust of politics. Kyoto smells to me like a George Soros type attempt to redistribute wealth on a worldwide basis. A lot of the proposed cures for global warming seem worse than the condition, and we now have ourselves in a position where we cannot exploit our own resources, are dependent on our adversaries for our economic life and hate the product around which our economy is built.

Why don’t you like George Soros? He is one of the most charitable people on Earth.

 

[thomfra]

Duh. I specifically understand that the report is biased and is based on flawed agenda driven scientists. \QUOTE]

So are you saying that all of these scientists “socialists liberals” (whatever that means)?

 

[mesurman]

Basically, Yes.

 

[thomfra]

Basically, Yes.

Ok. And you are saying that these socialist liberal researchers (those of them who have findings that global warming is a problem) are involved in a conspiracy to redistribute wealth on a global scale?

 

[mesurman]

Ok. And you are saying that these socialist liberal researchers (those of them who have findings that global warming is a problem) are involved in a conspiracy to redistribute wealth on a global scale?

Basically, Yes. Am I reading too much into your last post that you think that these scientists have NO agenda whatsoever, they are completely neutral. What say you about all the scientists that say Global Warming is not occurring?

 

[Oscarthecat]

Again I ask. What specifically in the report did you have problems understanding?

I don’t recall anyone saying they had problems understanding your report.

It is probably a good idea to mention here that a popular tactic used by Environmentalists in these discussions is to assume the role of the beneficent mentors and teachers, who have come forth to correct our misconceptions and teach us the truth of environmentalism. They often characterize their opposition as being ignorant of the “facts,” lacking the capacity to really understand the “truth,” and accuse those who refuse to fall in line with the latest, trendiest (and usually expensive) earth saving sheme of being selfish, stubborn, and uncaring.

In some ways it is similar to being recruited by a cult.

 

[thomfra]

Basically, Yes. Am I reading too much into your last post that you think that these scientists have NO agenda whatsoever, they are completely neutral. What say you about all the scientists that say Global Warming is not occurring?

I don’t say anything about them. I am sure they have valid research that should be reviewed, and we should try and understand what it may mean. Unlike you I don’t think they have an agenda.

But I believe the consolidated bulk of research speaks for itself. There is evidence from a vast number of sources which point towards man made global warming. The results of course are hard to predict. But the shear weight of research from all over the world just can’t be denied. That is basically what that group from the UN has done. They have gone through ALL of the research, and made conclusions from it.

 

[Oscarthecat]

I don’t say anything about them. I am sure they have valid research that should be reviewed, and we should try and understand what it may mean. Unlike you I don’t think they have an agenda.

But I believe the consolidated bulk of research speaks for itself. There is evidence from a vast number of sources which point towards man made global warming. The results of course are hard to predict. But the shear weight of research from all over the world just can’t be denied. That is basically what that group from the UN has done. They have gone through ALL of the research, and made conclusions from it.

So, does that mean that you don’t think that UN officials have any kind of agenda?

Do you think that anyone in the UN stands to gain financiallyor politically by promoting global warming?

 

[thomfra]

So, does that mean that you don’t think that UN officials have any kind of agenda?

Do you think that anyone in the UN stands to gain financiallyor politically by promoting global warming?

If you take the time (although I doubt you will, because it wouldn’t fit with your view of the world) to follow the link I sent you, you will find that the panel is a **joint **effort of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the UN.

So I guess all the meteorologists are also in on this conspiracy you keep ranting on about…

And I guess this panel needs to make contact with measurman because he has important independant observations about the weather patterns in his area that they are clearly not aware of.

Thank god you guys are on the job!

 

[Oscarthecat]

If you take the time (although I doubt you will, because it wouldn’t fit with your view of the world) to follow the link I sent you, you will find that the panel is a **joint **effort of the World Meteorological Organization

(WMO) and the UN.

So I guess all the meteorologists are also in on this conspiracy you keep ranting on about…

And I guess this panel needs to make contact with measurman because he has important independant observations about the weather patterns in his area that they are clearly not aware of.

Thank god you guys are on the job!

I can only interpret your response as an ad hominem attack meant to discredit me so that you don’t actually have to answer the two questions I asked you.

Those two questions were fairly straighforward:

does that mean that you don’t think that UN officials have any kind of agenda?

Do you think that anyone in the UN stands to gain financially or politically by promoting global warming?

I don’t think those questions point to any big conspiracy. Unless, of course, you define a “conspiracy theorist” as anyone who considers the personal motivations (a.k.a. “agendas”) of those who have the most to gain on either side an issue.

You probably wouldn’t call me a conspiracy nut for pointing out that oil execs see global warming as a threat to their oil revenues? What if I went one step further by pointing out that oil execs have spent a lot of money to combat the global warming crowd’s restrictive drilling and refinement legislation?

But you probably would call me a conspiracy theorist for pointing out that Al Gore’s interest in encouraging people to buy “carbon offsets” might be motivated in some small part by the fact that he is the chairman of a company he began in 2004 called “Generational Investment Management,” which does “independent global warming and alternative energy research” and earns revenue by investing in alternative energy companies and **commissions from managing private investment accounts marketed as “carbon offsets.” **

And you would definitely call me a conspiracy theorist for telling liberals who get all misty-eyed when they talk about how Al Gore spends hundreds of thousands of his own dollars on carbon credits to maintain a “carbon neutral lifestyle,”** that he is simply investing money in one of his own companies.**

But those aren’t conspiracy theories- they’re well documented examples of how the big players on both sides of this issue have a lot of money riding on what people think about global warming.

Now, would you please answer the two questions you dodged earlier?

 

[thomfra]

I can only interpret your response as an ad hominem attack meant to discredit me so that you don’t actually have to answer the two questions I asked you.

Those two questions were fairly straighforward:

I don’t think those questions point to any big conspiracy. Unless, of course, you define a “conspiracy theorist” as anyone who considers the personal motivations (a.k.a. “agendas”) of those who have the most to gain on either side an issue.

You probably wouldn’t call me a conspiracy nut for pointing out that oil execs see global warming as a threat to their oil revenues? What if I went one step further by pointing out that oil execs have spent a lot of money to combat the global warming crowd’s restrictive drilling and refinement legislation?

But you probably would call me a conspiracy theorist for pointing out that Al Gore’s interest in encouraging people to buy “carbon offsets” might be motivated in some small part by the fact that he is the chairman of a company he began in 2004 called “Generational Investment Management,” which does “independent global warming and alternative energy research” and earns revenue by investing in alternative energy companies and **commissions from managing private investment accounts marketed as “carbon offsets.” **

And you would definitely call me a conspiracy theorist for telling liberals who get all misty-eyed when they talk about how Al Gore spends hundreds of thousands of his own dollars on carbon credits to maintain a “carbon neutral lifestyle,”** that he is simply investing money in one of his own companies.**

But those aren’t conspiracy theories- they’re well documented examples of how the big players on both sides of this issue have a lot of money riding on what people think about global warming.

Now, would you please answer the two questions you dodged earlier?

So basically you don’t want to say whether you think the society of meterologists are in on it (i.e. making biased research for their own “peronsal” gain.

You’re digging yourself deeper and deeper here.