Global Warming alarmists' scam continues to come undone.

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

I get enough arguing with little children at my dayjob... I'm out. JW, you have my vote for the aforementioned award. Congrats on being a colossal dumbfuck.

 

[Lex]

Two points, JQ: for the 5th time, please learn to use the quote tags. It's so easy, even a liberal can do it.

*cracks the fuck up*

Also, please answer the question.

Oh, and you do realize that you ARE the original poster, right?

Alright, I did re-read the post. You still did not answer that question. You still told me not to address you, but to address the original poster. You are the original poster. You didn't answer that question, either. Now, wipe the egg off your face, learn to use the quote tags (it's so easy, even a liberal can do it) and answer both of those questions I posed.

Could we have a multiple identity troll on hand? This guy sounds a LOT like faceking, only dumber.

The only people I know that speak of themselves in the 3rd person all the time are professional Wrestlers.

Ex: The Rock says,"The Rock is gonna kick ALL your candy asses!"

 

[No_Strings]

You know something? I've just read this whole thread, from start to finish, including all links and honestly? Its a joke.

I'm about as far from political as possible, for the simple reason that I couldn't pick a side if you paid me, I don't believe anything anyone says, it all changes once they get the votes anyway.

So, my point:

Starting a thread, or making your first post in a thread and filling it with vague, hidden or otherwise covert insults means one thing only... You won't be taken seriously by anyone intelligent enough to see through them. It proves without a doubt that you are of lacking skills in several aspects, the main two being social interaction and contructive debate, thus started your piece in the defensive stance. Much like putting your hand into a snake enclosure to feed it, but the snake arches up ready to bite before waiting to see what happens once you're in there. Attack first, just in case.

So, since I'm clueless to all of this political crap being thrown around by all sides, I'd like to see the facts of Global Warming from both sides, without influence of political stand point, as that has nothing what so ever to do with the effects something has on something else. If I hit you at 90 mph in a car, my political stand point will not determine the effect it has on you, neither will yours.

So come on, cold, hard facts about the effects, both plus and minus, of Global Warming, so that next time its brought up I can have an informed opinion based on the FACTS, not which party says what and what I've been told by friends.

Also following this post, I expect no personal attacks on anyone for their political and/or religious beliefs race, colour, nationality, gender and all that other stuff you might feel the need to resort to. You have a problem with something someone is saying.. State your onjection and your reasons without lowering yourselves to "You're just a typical..." or "Aha, typical.. " and the likes.

Kotch rocks my socks :smile:

 

[B_chinagirl73]

shelby,

Do you understand what entropy is? Just a question.

Many doomsayers have got the timing wrong - but their concepts are correct. For instance, the moment when oil shortage becomes critical keeps getting advanced because people keep getting more ingenious at extracting it from the Earth.

This doesn't mean that oil is infinite. The ingenuity doesn't "make" oil - it pushes the crunch time a little further into the future. The ingenuity will ultimately have the effect of making the "crash" more dramatic.

It is like this, I believe, with many of the Earth's ecological problems. The techno-fixes raise the bar, but don't remove the ultimate price. Maybe young Shelby was smarter than you think.

 

[SpeedoGuy]

I'm about as far from political as possible, for the simple reason that I couldn't pick a side if you paid me...

And therein lies the problem, kotchanski.

The global warming deniers fully realize they don't have to win the debate with cold, hard facts. They only need to confuse and conflate the issue so much that reasonable voters won't know what to believe and, thus, will be discouraged into doing nothing.

 

[B_JQblonde]

And therein lies the problem, kotchanski.

The global warming deniers fully realize they don't have to win the debate with cold, hard facts. They only need to confuse and conflate the issue so much that reasonable voters won't know what to believe and, thus, will be discouraged into doing nothing.

On the planet where you live, where the global warming alarmists never distort any facts, do lemon drips really grow on trees??

 

[B_JQblonde]

1) Gore’s family has taken numerous steps to reduce the carbon footprint of their private residence, including signing up for 100 percent green power through Green Power Switch, installing solar panels, and using compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy saving technology.


2) Gore has had a consistent position of purchasing carbon offsets to offset the family’s carbon footprint — a concept the right-wing fails to understand. Gore’s office explains:

What Mr. Gore has asked is that every family calculate their carbon footprint and try to reduce it as much as possible. Once they have done so, he then advocates that they purchase offsets, as the Gore’s do, to bring their footprint down to zero.​

Oh trust me, some right wingers are VERY aware of what the deeply flawed concept of purchasing carbon offsets is all about.
It's a way for limousine liberals to assuage their conscience for being such energy gluttons.

 

[DC_DEEP]

jq, please answer both of my direct questions in post #66 and my direct question in post #81. None of your non-answers or cute little quips, please, just direct answers.

 

[Full_Phil]

On the planet where you live, where the global warming alarmists never distort any facts, do lemon drips really grow on trees??

The modus operandi of our world is to over exaggerate, whichever side you are on. Your comments about liberals are proof positive. If only I had taken photographs of the receding glacier in Glacier Bay, Alaska on each of the three times I was there. I would post them and show the undeniable results of what's happening to our ecosystem. That said, it is my belief that industry is only speeding up the natural process of alternative warming and cooling that qwe've been going through for eons.

I shouldn't get into this, I know.

 

[B_JQblonde]

I think one of the questions was about the benefits of global warming.

Although it is impossible to measure the gains exactly, a moderately warmer climate would be likely to benefit Americans in many ways, especially in health and in satisfying people's preferences for more warm weather. Most people would enjoy higher temperatures, and the evidence supports the proposition that humans would live longer and avoid some sickness. Less cold weather would mean less snow shoveling, fewer days of driving on icy roads, lower heating bills, and reduced outlays for clothing.

No doubt many drawbacks to global warming exist, the most notable being the possibility of a rising sea level. In addition, the beneficial results described above apply strictly only to the United States, although it seems likely that advanced industrial countries in the middle latitudes would benefit as well. These regressions provide no information on the effect of warming on health or mortality in tropical or poor countries, which might suffer health impairment from warming. It would be useful to extend this analysis to the entire globe, but that would be very difficult. Not only does the climate vary greatly and incomes, which are difficult to compare, differ hugely, but cultural traits, including diet, are significantly different. Hong Kong, for example, has the longest life expectancy in the world. Is that because it is tropical, because it is rich, or because of its diet? Moreover, it should be stressed that the evidence presented here is for a moderate rise in temperatures. If warming were to continue well beyond 2.5deg.C, the costs would mount and at some point the health and welfare effects would undoubtedly turn negative.[9] Contrary to many dire forecasts, however, the temperature increase predicted by the IPCC under a doubling of greenhouse gases would yield both health and welfare benefits for Americans.

Damages and Benefits of Warming

 

[DC_DEEP]

I think one of the questions was about the benefits of global warming.
<...>
Moreover, it should be stressed that the evidence presented here is for a moderate rise in temperatures. If warming were to continue well beyond 2.5deg.C, the costs would mount and at some point the health and welfare effects would undoubtedly turn negative. Contrary to many dire forecasts, however, the temperature increase predicted by the IPCC under a doubling of greenhouse gases would yield both health and welfare benefits for Americans.

Interesting article, but I find it odd that the assertion is that a global warming would only affect winter temperatures. Do you have other sources? It is also interesting that the article specifies that these benefits would apply only to Americans. That seems a bit short-sighted to me. The article also concedes that these are only predictions/projections, and are subject to any number of variables. With that in mind, the one model that predicts 2.5 degrees C or less may or may not be accurate, and it acknowledges that if the increase is greater than 2.5 C, the benefits disappear and become liabilities.

So, now, you answered one of the three questions. Please continue with the other two.

 

[Satsfakshun]

I think one of the questions was about the benefits of global warming.

Although it is impossible to measure the gains exactly, a moderately warmer climate would be likely to benefit Americans in many ways, especially in health and in satisfying people's preferences for more warm weather. Most people would enjoy higher temperatures, and the evidence supports the proposition that humans would live longer and avoid some sickness. Less cold weather would mean less snow shoveling, fewer days of driving on icy roads, lower heating bills, and reduced outlays for clothing.

No doubt many drawbacks to global warming exist, the most notable being the possibility of a rising sea level. In addition, the beneficial results described above apply strictly only to the United States, although it seems likely that advanced industrial countries in the middle latitudes would benefit as well. These regressions provide no information on the effect of warming on health or mortality in tropical or poor countries, which might suffer health impairment from warming. It would be useful to extend this analysis to the entire globe, but that would be very difficult. Not only does the climate vary greatly and incomes, which are difficult to compare, differ hugely, but cultural traits, including diet, are significantly different. Hong Kong, for example, has the longest life expectancy in the world. Is that because it is tropical, because it is rich, or because of its diet? Moreover, it should be stressed that the evidence presented here is for a moderate rise in temperatures. If warming were to continue well beyond 2.5deg.C, the costs would mount and at some point the health and welfare effects would undoubtedly turn negative.[9] Contrary to many dire forecasts, however, the temperature increase predicted by the IPCC under a doubling of greenhouse gases would yield both health and welfare benefits for Americans.

Damages and Benefits of Warming

You seem to be saying that you would happily enjoy mild winters and low heating bills even if it meant that a significant portion of the population living near the equator slowly starves to death in the grip of perpetual drought. Maybe you'd welcome these refugees into your community and your home? We're going to be packed pretty tightly given the population explosion and huge tracks of land are no longer fit for growing food.

 

[dong20]

JQ, and anyone who wants to experience a different climate:

1. Go on vacation (but don't fly)
2. Move (as far away as possible, Siberia or the moon perhaps both could use some hot air)
3. Carry on as you are, and it'll come to you, though you may not like it when it does. (but you already know that, right).

Moderate upward trends in temperature may appear appealing at face value, but remember these are changes in average, annual temperatures and a 2.5C average change will almost certainly mean a significantly larger effect in the temperatures reached at seasonal extremes. The change may not even occur the way you referenced, climate change is unpredicatable, that 2.5C annual rise may mask icy winters and baking summers.

So we could end up with far colder but shorter winters and far hotter but longer summers with little in between but still have an average 2.5C rise or some other variation. A rise which may kill thousands and alter agricultural processes, perhaps irrevocably and in the process make huge areas of the globe uninhabitable.

Yet you use arguments like having to spend less on clothes and shovel less snow, are those really meant as serious arguments, is that really what you're saying....?

I know you're a bullshitter and we're on your case but I'm curious to see if you can actually articulate a coherent sentence, in defence of your stance (if it actually is your stance) or even one without recourse to infantile attempts at humour and free of nonsensical references.

 

[JustAsking]

Saying that warming temperatures from Global Warming are a benefit is like saying that you can keep warm for a while by lighting your house on fire. Both are true, but the short term effects are overwhelmed by the disastrous longterm effects.

Global Warming and Disease

Also, the "benefits" argument makes a faulty assumption that the effects of Global Warming are linear. In other words it assumes that a few tenths of a degree increase in global temperatures translates to small but proportional effects in environmental factors like sea level changes and the growing season in Illinois, for example.

This assumption is faulty and downright dangerous because there is every evidence that climate, weather, ocean currents, etc, are very nonlinear systems and have a tremendous sensitivity to the factors that effect them. These systems are nonlinear to the point where they are considered "Chaotic". In fact, Chaos Theory was born out of modeling the climate with computers.

The point is that small changes in longterm climatic factors can cause large and abrupt changes in things like ocean currents that can cause a cascade of other things to happen.

Notice the lattitude of England and Europe in general, and ask yourself why England does not have the weather of Labrador.

There is no credible argument that can be made these days that weather systems and climate are not extremely non-linear.

 

[B_JQblonde]

Saying that warming temperatures from Global Warming are a benefit is like saying that you can keep warm for a while by lighting your house on fire. Both are true, but the short term effects are overwhelmed by the disastrous longterm effects.

Global Warming and Disease

Also, the "benefits" argument makes a faulty assumption that the effects of Global Warming are linear. In other words it assumes that a few tenths of a degree increase in global temperatures translates to small but proportional effects in environmental factors like sea level changes and the growing season in Illinois, for example.

This assumption is faulty and downright dangerous because there is every evidence that climate, weather, ocean currents, etc, are very nonlinear systems and have a tremendous sensitivity to the factors that effect them. These systems are nonlinear to the point where they are considered "Chaotic". In fact, Chaos Theory was born out of modeling the climate with computers.

The point is that small changes in longterm climatic factors can cause large and abrupt changes in things like ocean currents that can cause a cascade of other things to happen.

Notice the lattitude of England and Europe in general, and ask yourself why England does not have the weather of Labrador.

There is no credible argument that can be made these days that weather systems and climate are not extremely non-linear.

<shaking my head in disbelief>

Are you saying that the no benefits would accrue from global warming? It It would all be calamity??

 

[B_JQblonde]

I know you're a bullshitter and we're on your case but I'm curious to see if you can actually articulate a coherent sentence, in defence of your stance (if it actually is your stance) or even one without recourse to infantile attempts at humour and free of nonsensical references.

Uhhhhhhm , did you happen to catch the fact that I posted a link to a study done by some dudes at Satnford? So I guess THEY would be the bullshitters.

My stance is that the alarmists ONLY point out the catastrophic scenarios resulting form global warming but never the positive effects.

And there would certainly be many positive effects < Do you even need a study to tell you that?>

Any public policy should consider ALL variables.

 

[B_spiker067]

Saying...

Can you show me that the intensity of Sun's EM flux does not heat up the earth far more so than human activity?

Or that the Sun doesn't shield earth from stellar ray's that increase cloud production that in turn usually have cooled off the planet?

Pollution and loss of biodiversity I can directly trace back to human activity.

Life on Earth has been more like a buffered solution than anything else. The question is when do we hit the tipping point.

 

[Ethyl]

My stance is that the alarmists ONLY point out the catastrophic scenarios resulting form global warming but never the positive effects.

It goes without saying that the catastrophic scenarios would far outweigh any positive effects as a result of global warming. Unless you don't care about the negative long-term effects on everything dong20 mentioned above which appears to be the case. You're masking your apathy by labeling people who care about the subject as "Alarmists" and arguing about any momentary benefits "Americans" would experience. It only makes you look silly and shortsighted.

If you don't care just admit it.

 

[Shelby]

shelby,

Do you understand what entropy is? Just a question.

Many doomsayers have got the timing wrong - but their concepts are correct. For instance, the moment when oil shortage becomes critical keeps getting advanced because people keep getting more ingenious at extracting it from the Earth.

This doesn't mean that oil is infinite. The ingenuity doesn't "make" oil - it pushes the crunch time a little further into the future. The ingenuity will ultimately have the effect of making the "crash" more dramatic.

It is like this, I believe, with many of the Earth's ecological problems. The techno-fixes raise the bar, but don't remove the ultimate price. Maybe young Shelby was smarter than you think.

Yes I do. That's exactly what made the book so appealing. I think your comments reinforce mine. Rifkin concepts were sound. It's just that he then, as Gore is doing now, threw out all these time lines that didn't come true.

Sure oil will run out. But before it does human ingenuity will have devised an alternative. Some people are already converting their vehicles to run on vegetable oil. Hydrogen powered vehicles which emit water are being developed. Liberals hate nuclear power (unless it's for Iran), but there's another option.

I'm far more afraid of the superbugs we create by rampant overuse of antibiotics and other bacteriacides than Gore's silly song and dance.

btw - who's causing this?

 

[dong20]

Uhhhhhhm , did you happen to catch the fact that I posted a link to a study done by some dudes at Satnford? So I guess THEY would be the bullshitters.

Dudes eh? But yes I did. I suppose another benefit of going to Stanford would be being able to spell it?

My stance is that the alarmists ONLY point out the catastrophic scenarios resulting form global warming but never the positive effects.

And there would certainly be many positive effects < Do you even need a study to tell you that?>

No, your stance is that anthropogenic climate change is a scam that you're right and everyone else who says otherwise is wrong. There may be postive side effects for some sure, that's not really the issue though is it. The issue is whether anthropogenic climate change is a reality or a scam right?

Any benefits for the cold who become a tad warmer will pale into insignificance given the likely cost of their warmth. Don't you think?

Any public policy should consider ALL variables.

Yes it should, but this is a message board and you are not considering all variables, only those you bring to the venue and deem appropriate. Don't look now, but your slip is showing.