The Climate Change Hoax

Any President in history? Really? I'm not sure I believe that. Show me the polls for the presidents from the 1800's, particularly Andrew Johnson, Lincoln's successor. Show me the polls for Hoover, after the stock market crashed in October of his first year.

It's pretty irrelevant what the polls are now. Obama inherited bad times when he took office (two wars, a financial industry scandal and a recession), and anything he did or didn't do was going to piss off a significant number of people. What counts is what the votes will be in 2012, three years from now, and that will probably depend largely on the state of the economy.

Many people are predicting Democratic losses in Congress next year, and carrying on like that will be some sort of referendum on Obama. The truth is that the party in power traditionally loses ground in off-year elections, so that won't prove anything either.

Mussolini's ultimate fate was a firing squad. Are you claiming that could happen to Obama, depending on whether or not he signs something?

 

OK, at risk of interrupting your laughter, I've given you a good rap for absolutley no reason at all but to compensate for your previous loss. So there!
Now... behave or I take away two points.

 

Troy, are you making excuses for that guy? Irrelevant? Really? It amazes what you people will come up with!
Don't downplay the destruction of your party. Congress is going kamikazi on healthcare as we speak and America is pissed. The economy is slowing its free-fall (a little money is starting to move and job loss increases are slowing down) and they have plans to actually spend stimulus money before next fall's elections and that may lessen the blood-letting but a blood-letting it will be. The problem for your side is, that middle America worked and took care of their families and just rolled their eyes at you for forty years but when you people finally jerked the rug, they started learning, reading, and understanding. The JIG IS UP.
Firing squad? Well, probably not, if Jimmy Carter is an indicator but treason is treason. I could imagine an impeachment and jail time on any number of counts. You must not notice this in CA, busy passing bond measures to have textbooks changed to reflect positively on alternative lifestyles, banning guns and driving business out of state, but America is truly pissed. I only responded to Mas about Obama to demonstrate why he would not sign. I have no intentions of further debating politics on this thread.

 

Hoo-boy, you really believe California is the root of all evil, don't you? I'll bet if your neighbor's dog back there in Podunk Holler got loose and bit someone, it would be California's fault.

I think you have issues....

 

Yes, and since the CO2 were higher long before man could have been the cause, and the fact that CO2 levels *follow* temperature change ... that leaves you with the fuss ... that when one "scientist" can take data and concluded one thing, and another "scientist" can take data and conclude something very much different, there are unknowns.

The people that I know personally that deal with climate issues almost refuse to talk about it. The popular "science" of AGW does not fit with their data and observations. When they make a statement to that effect, they have to listen to people that hide behind the idea that all those studies and scientists must be right and anyone that does not follow the Al Gore line must have an agenda funded by big oil ...

You seem to be more than willing to accept that anyone that does not agree with your opinion is part of a conspiracy backed by big business / big oil, but refuse to consider that possibility from the side you support.

It seems to me that as science has evolved, many theories have been proved wrong. I don't argue that the climate is not changing. I do find it odd that the state of science in this area does not lead everyone to the same conclusion. I know enough scientists that end up looking for ways to support their ideas and that create adjustments to data to support their theory that I am a skeptic.

When you try to find a cause for a normal variance you are on a fools errand. The climate of the planet is a complex machine to be sure, but like any machine there is a normal range of variance in the output. In this case there is a range of temperatures and levels of CO2 that are observable. Changes within this range are normal.

It is my opinion that the nature of the global climate machine is not understood well enough to place any faith in the current theories. I think that is proved by predictions that vary by huge margins. Until they create models that are far more accurate than those available today, I'm not buying alarmist predictions.

 

at one time there was no oxygen just co2 and it took many millions of years for the first plant life to make enough oxygen for animal life to appear.

yes co2 has varied through out earths history maybe sometimes abruptly and the then life suffered

today the earth is rather historically stable and conditions are very favorable for us and yes there could be a natural event that would drastically change things but thats no excuse for humanity to act the way it does just because nature might throw a fit

that is like saying the ship may hit a rogue wave so why take maintain it , full speed ahead and the hell with oil changes

 

The last time the Earth had CO2 levels higher than today was 50 million years ago, during the Eocene Era. There were palm trees in Alaska and crocodiles in the Arctic; sea levels 100 meters (over 300 ft) higher than they are today; and no ice. I don't think we want those days back. We didn't evolve to fit them.

Unfortunately, we don't just have two scientists taking the same data and reaching very different conclusions. That's the same false proposition put forth by opponents of evolution: that as long as there's one or two voices disagreeing, the question isn't settled.

The reality is that although they're still hammering out the details and fine-tuning their conclusions, there is a remarkably broad consensus among legitimate scientists that global warming is real, and man is contributing significantly to it.

No. I never claimed that everyone who disagrees with climate change is part of a conspiracy funded by big oil. Please don't put words in my mouth.

But it's a verifiable fact that the Oregon Petition Project was paid for by the George C Marshall Institute, and the Institute gets its funding from Exxon. The same man, Frederick Seitz, was listed as the head of both the project and the institute, and his previous gig was spending $45 million from RJ Reynolds tobacco, to make it look and sound like there was a genuine scientific debate over whether smoking kills. Again, fact. Not simply a personal opinion, or a paranoid conspiracy theory. It's also a verifiable fact that other noisy climate change deniers are funded by Exxon.

On the other side, I see no proof that governments all over the world are scheming to corrupt scientific research, and force it to some preordained results in the name of using global warming as an excuse to control our lives. That....is not verifiable fact. That is a PCT (Paranoid Conspiracy Theory).

Well, no. The recent changes are not normal. That's the whole point.....I would say the true fool's errand is the attempt to sweep an "inconvenient truth" (as Al Gore labeled it) under the rug, in the hopes that if it's ignored it will go away.

If people like you have their way and we don't address the problem, you better be right. Because it's going to be a mess if you're wrong.

There is no such thing as absolute certainty in science. If that's what you want or need, become a priest. But there does come a time when the science is so overwhelmingly in favor of a conclusion that it comes time to fish or cut bait (to use the politer phrase.....). A whole lot of scientists think that time has come.

 

science never said all smokers would get cancer only that a bunch more than normal would

and science cant predict who will get cancer from smoking or that any individual with cancer got it from smoking

science only says cancer is more prevalent among smokers

 

My impassioned approach tends to alienate and divide - I admit but you won't read The Acquittal of Carbon Dioxide nor the John Storrs Hall stuff. Two simple things that would turn you around. The J.Storrs Hall thing is quite a fun read, no less, and you could not continue in this vein if you were to take five minutes to do so.

 

How wonderful! You mean you can sum up, examine and invalidate the work of hundreds of scientists, maybe even thousands, in only five minutes?

I'm sorry; I don't believe you. If it were that simple, the whole subject would have been in the trash can for years. Because believe it or not, most scientists aren't so stupid and so venal that they ignore reality.

And by the way: "impassioned approach" isn't exactly the phrase that comes to mind, when you go into your hysterical song and dance about California poisoning the entire world.....

 

seems science is saying overwhelming evidence and the nay sayers are saying absolutely not

when they say maybe then they may realize the worst out come isnt worth the risk

 

The main argument seems to be that because the majority supports a theory it must be right. That is democratic but not scientific. A single right person continues to be right even if it is the only one.

 

Just read it!

 

Not saying I agree or Disagree with this, Im simply posting a link so that it can easily be read by all intrested.

http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html

K9

 

if a majority of scientists support a theory its because they agree with the theory

sorta like most scientists agree with the law of gravity