Global Warming? are humans to blame?

I think there was an offhand compliment in there, Frosty.
Certainly everybody knows what IQ is. Chronological age ratio to mental age. An 8 year old thinking like a 64 year old, would have an IQ of 800. Considering an IQ of 140 and above, is genius level, that would be a VERY smart kid indeed!
Thankyou, but I will actually be 64 soon, so I don't have an 800 IQ. But nice compliment!

 

Clutching at straws and pissing in the wind Yobi--your see where there is none.

Life after death , health while smoking, God made the sun --your a dreamer.

There might be some use for you somewhere but nothing comes to mind.

 

FROSTY
Those who believe in nothing, will fall for anything!
But even THEY might have trouble with YOUR logic!

 

I've never heard anyone say CO2 is evil or unnatural. Water isn't evil or unnatural either; does that mean we can just shrug off flood warnings?

 

Good morning Troy

 

Advanced warning is valuable. You can decide if flooding is dangerous or a GOOD thing, decide whether you Can make preparations, or Should make prepsarations, or can AFFORD preparations, and you can even decide if the warning is credible and has any probability of actually occurring.

Each of us can make the decisions included in THIS decision tree, or a different unique personal decision tree.

We each have a right to decide it's OUR OWN decision to make, what we will and won't do! It is NOT the right of some agency, or government employee, or consensus, or world opinion to MAKE us or decide for us.

 

What if your digging on your property floods my property, or your filling the river in front of your property keeps me from getting to my dock on mine?

 

Easements and access and riverine rights are usually included in property legal discriptions.
If they aren't in writing? You don't have them.
In the USA, everybody must deal with rain and flooding that occurrs on their property. But normally, the titles will include easements. Example, I would have an easement to drain downgrade onto your property, and you would have an easement to drain onto the adjacent property, ect.

But that isn't what you intended, is it? You were asking, what if my rights conflicted with yours? Happens all the time. That's why we have civil courts.

 

My point was neither I nor my neighbors own the waterways or the air. If you divert your water to flood my property and haven't bought the easement/right from me, I have a problem. If you fill the river that is shared by everyone with your rubble from your property so it becomes impassible, I have a problem with that too.

 

Don't worry about filling the river in. Everybodies property stops at the waters edge. And the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers, won't permit "Filling in"!

Usually, easements were allotted at the time the land was subdivided. Every property I ever owned, already had easements extant. OR, I wouldn't have bought the land.

 

You have no unlimited right to make your own decisions, if what you're going to do effects others. As the old saying goes, "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."

Simply saying you don't believe you're doing the environment any damage doesn't counter that simple truth. Nor does it make sense to leave everything up to individuals.

What do you think the smog situation in Los Angeles would be right now, if the government had let individual motorists decide whether they believe researchers and scientists about what causes smog -- and had let each of them decide whether to install smog devices on their cars?

 

But again, I don't think you are talking about property rights. I think, you are talking about air polution or CO2 production, or causing global warming. Troy was, with his "flood warning" simile.
My caution is this! Fom Abraham Lincoln.

"At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide."
--January 27, 1838

It's death of our freedom I'm talking about. So was he. Not death by CO2!

 

We differ. I believe the government has NO right, except the individual rights of it's citizens. So did the founding fathers.
Purpose of government is to protect our rights. NOT to protect us from ourselves.
And we did not recieve our rights from the government. Freedom was given by our Creator. It's inalienable. Our government was established to protect our freedom, not control it, or limit it!

That's just a wee bit of a problem for athiests and agnostics, because THEY don't know WHERE their rights came from.
I DO!

You can read in the following where we got our freedom:

In the Declaration of Independence
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed "

and in the Gettysburg Address
"that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

and in the Constitution
" We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. "

Problem is, most holding office today forgot and ignore these concepts, though they swore to preserve them, and many voting them into office don't even AGREE with these principles. We need to take our country BACK!

Rest my Case!

 

Any list that presents what is probably the banner child of agnotology first and foremost, is obviously not a very well researched list. The site is classic in its disinformation and the majority of information presented is fraudulent. for instance, The Great Global Warming Swindle, You might want to read what climate scientists thought of that little ditty, cause it was one big long boring Gish Gallop as far as real scientists are concerned.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/

I'm actually kinda surprised its still being quoted by anyone, the psudo-documentary/disinfomercial has been so thoroughly sued and disgraced I didn't know it was available anymore. Many of the people quoted in it sued for having been taken out of context and it gave just about the entire scientific community a cross between a gag response and indigestion. Deal is that famous piece of agnotology is one misrepresentation after another with a bit of liable thrown in. Hardly qualifies as anything we should bother discussing on a science and physics forum.

 

Gross exageration AGAIN Boston. Cite where MANY of the people quoted in it sued!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GGWS

Although the documentary was welcomed by global warming sceptics, it was criticised by scientific organisations and individual scientists (including one of the scientists interviewed in the film and one whose research was used to support the film's claims[7][8]). The film's critics argued that it had misused and fabricated data, relied on out-of-date research, employed misleading arguments, and misrepresented the position of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.[8][9][10][11]

Later broadcasts corrected three errors which had been found in the original film. The film's producer, Martin Durkin, has asserted that they were minor errors. "

Carl Wunsch
Considered suing and did file a complaint with OFCOM .

Boston, get your facts straight!