Democrats care more about global warming than security!

[TheDude]

And FOX and the Weekly Standard etc. don't lean to the right.

Can't you RWWs stand up for anything without blaming the "liberal MSM"??

Reminds me of my best friends 4 year old daughter... when she's playing with my 2 year old [Chloe] and they do something wrong, i.e. break something, color on the walls etc., she's always quick to say "Chloe did it!" when questioned.

 

[Calabrio]

So why isn't Cheney running in '08??? I'll get my popcorn.

Because he'd be a 67 year old man with a very bad heart, who has stated since 2000 that he had no intention of running for the Presidency. No popcorn need for this one, he's been stating this since 1999.

 

[Vitas]

A unnatural and rapid (human caused) rise in Global Temperatures can have a serious affect on the environment, from water levels to food production as models predict. Will it wipe out mankind as a whole if true... no it won't, but it does threaten humanity.

Source?

Saying "people like it warmer" as a scapegoat, is a jackass move.

I will consider the opinions of winners such as Charlie Munger or Warren Buffett much more seriously than the opinions of a loser, such as Al Gore.

Vitas

 

[MAC1]

Reminds me of my best friends 4 year old daughter... when she's playing with my 2 year old [Chloe] and they do something wrong, i.e. break something, color on the walls etc., she's always quick to say "Chloe did it!" when questioned.

Well, now you know your friend's daughter is going to be a democrat.

 

[MAC1]

A unnatural and rapid (human caused) rise in Global Temperatures can have a serious affect on the environment, from water levels to food production as models predict. Will it wipe out mankind as a whole if true... no it won't, but it does threaten humanity. Saying "people like it warmer" as a scapegoat, is a jackass move.

Global warming threatens humanity? I don't know about that, but I do know that Al Gore and company wants everyone to believe that.

 

[shagdrum]

A unnatural and rapid (human caused) rise in Global Temperatures can have a serious affect on the environment, from water levels to food production as models predict. Will it wipe out mankind as a whole if true... no it won't, but it does threaten humanity. Saying "people like it warmer" as a scapegoat, is a jackass move.

"as models predict"; well there you go. There is the flaw. Models (mathematical or computer) are consistently inacurate when it comes to predicting anything in the future. The farther in the future the more flawed the model. If your arguement is based on models (as all man made global warming arguments are) then it is flawed.

 

[shagdrum]

I luv how you lefties just refuse to accept the fact that the mainstream media is blatantly bias towards the left. If u don't acknowledge the truth then it can't be true? is that how it works?

 

[Joeychgo]

Global warming threatens humanity? I don't know about that, but I do know that Al Gore and company wants everyone to believe that.

Ive made this point before.

Do you really wanna chance it? I dont know how real a threat it is. I know most scientists seem to agree its a potentially huge problem. SO I think we should be leaning in a direction of undoing the things we do to the enviroment. Much of what we can do also helps with national security since it can reduce or eliminate our dependance on foreign oil.

 

[Joeychgo]

I luv how you lefties just refuse to accept the fact that the mainstream media is blatantly bias towards the left. If u don't acknowledge the truth then it can't be true? is that how it works?

There is a blatent bias today... But it isnt so much right or left. Its green.

News is a profit center now. They do whatever makes them the most money.

And this includes the republican national broadcasting channel, I mean, Fox news.

 

[TheDude]

Global warming threatens humanity? I don't know about that, but I do know that Al Gore and company wants everyone to believe that.

It really depends on the final outcome, which isn't known for certain. Like I said, an unnatural rapid rise can cause havoc, water levels rising will threaten people living at or below sea level; significant killing off of insects such as bees will put a kink in the food chain etc.

Further research needs to be done before any drastic action is taken or ignored, that's my point; not "We're all going to die, aaahhh *flaps arms around*!" or "Don't worry about it."

 

[TheDude]

"as models predict"; well there you go. There is the flaw. Models (mathematical or computer) are consistently inacurate when it comes to predicting anything in the future. The farther in the future the more flawed the model. If your arguement is based on models (as all man made global warming arguments are) then it is flawed.

Yes, there is a level on inaccuracy, not 'they're completely useless'. Considering we're dealing with something that has a potential to be serious for everybody, it shouldn't be shrugged off.

 

[TheDude]

Source?



I will consider the opinions of winners such as Charlie Munger or Warren Buffett much more seriously than the opinions of a loser, such as Al Gore.

Vitas

Source for what? A warming planet does equate to rising sea levels. If it is rapid (unnatural) then it's a threat. Same goes for food production...

Nothing to do with Gore, Munger or Warren. Just saying "people like it warmer" as an excuse to shrug off 'Global Warming' is lame.

 

[MAC1]

Ive made this point before.

Do you really wanna chance it? I dont know how real a threat it is. I know most scientists seem to agree its a potentially huge problem. SO I think we should be leaning in a direction of undoing the things we do to the enviroment. Much of what we can do also helps with national security since it can reduce or eliminate our dependance on foreign oil.

Since the 70s substantial progress has been made to clean the environment and lower CO2 emissions. The problem is that technology is still lacking as far as efficient clean energy, but I tend to believe there are going to be substantial breakthroughs in the not to distant future. You say "eliminate" our dependence on foreign oil—but the hope is to little by little eliminate the need for oil period. I know this is a long way off but hopefully solar power, wind power and perhaps fusion sometime in the future will provide all the power we need.

Do you want the U.S. to spend trillions of dollars (estimate is 4% of GDP) to mitigate global warming, which is based on consensus, not science? I know that members of the global warming cult keep saying the debate is over in that its clear humans are causing global warming. The truth is, however, that Al Gore and company are not interested in debating regardless of the lack of science. So, while I, like most Americans, want to see clean energy, it remains that most Americans are not ready to swallow hook-line-and-sinker the proposition that global warming is human produced and consequently radical steps need to be taken to mitigate its alleged effects.

I wouldn't be surprised if Al Gore is uncertain about the cause of global warming (assuming it's more than just an anomaly) but he is willing to justify his claims in order to facilitate technological advancement towards clean energy and perhaps to be a hero for radical environmentalists.

 

[shagdrum]

Yes, there is a level on inaccuracy, not 'they're completely useless'. Considering we're dealing with something that has a potential to be serious for everybody, it shouldn't be shrugged off.

Yes, they r pretty accurate at predicting the weather a day or two out, but if they r off by even a small margin (which they always r), then the farther out u predict, the more it magnifies the error (doesn't just add to it, it multiplies it) to the point of being irrelevant. When it comes to global warming, the models are (without fail) always wrong. According to the earliest ones, we should have used up all fossil fuels, used up the worlds food supply, ect... all before I was born in 1980!

So, according to your logic here, if we r dealing with something that, if true, has great potential to harm us we should take action to prevent it. The burden of proof is secondary to the percieved threat. Can u say Big Brother? Japan might declare war on us again. There is no evidence to suggest they r thinking that, and they have no military to speak of, but they might, so lets put all american japanese back into concentration camps!!

The point I am making, is that, logically the burden of proof has to primary, before the degree of any potential threat is to be considered. Basically, u r reversing the same logic that liberals and libertarians use against the Patriot Act and the war in Iraq.

 

[shagdrum]

There is a blatent bias today... But it isnt so much right or left. Its green.

News is a profit center now. They do whatever makes them the most money.

And this includes the republican national broadcasting channel, I mean, Fox news.

I would agree in as far as all news is a business. But so many news sources r losing ad revenue due to their bias, while Fox is gaining marketshare due to people prefering their news coverage. Money isn't the chief motivator in the mainstream media, though it is a large factor. I would say, secondary only to politics. Spin first, money second.

 

[TheDude]

Yes, they r pretty accurate at predicting the weather a day or two out, but if they r off by even a small margin (which they always r), then the farther out u predict, the more it magnifies the error (doesn't just add to it, it multiplies it) to the point of being irrelevant. When it comes to global warming, the models are (without fail) always wrong. According to the earliest ones, we should have used up all fossil fuels, used up the worlds food supply, ect... all before I was born in 1980!

So, according to your logic here, if we r dealing with something that, if true, has great potential to harm us we should take action to prevent it. The burden of proof is secondary to the percieved threat. Can u say Big Brother? Japan might declare war on us again. There is no evidence to suggest they r thinking that, and they have no military to speak of, but they might, so lets put all american japanese back into concentration camps!!

The point I am making, is that, logically the burden of proof has to primary, before the degree of any potential threat is to be considered. Basically, u r reversing the same logic that liberals and libertarians use against the Patriot Act and the war in Iraq.

Your comparison's are irrelevant. Global Warming is happening, that isn't in question. What is in question, how 'far' will it go and to what level humanaity has/is causing it; that is what needs to be studied.

Best case scenarion, humans are not the culprits to a signficant degree and the rise in temps will be slow and steady, worse case scenario, humans are the major cause and we face rapid changes that will affect us seriously. Do you really want to take the chance that it is strictly the former and just ignore it.

 

[Marcus]

Yes, they r pretty accurate at predicting the weather a day or two out, but if they r off by even a small margin (which they always r), then the farther out u predict, the more it magnifies the error (doesn't just add to it, it multiplies it) to the point of being irrelevant.

I've said this before and I'll say it again: Weather and climate are NOT the same thing. Weather is about local conditions, climate is about large-scale trends on an overall global scale. The fact that local weather can't be predicted more than a few days out has absolutely NOTHING to do with predicting climate change.

Now one can argue that computer models may not be 100% accurate, but to dismiss them due to the fact that the weather guy screwed up the weekend forecast, is either blind ignorance of the science or blatant dishonesty.

 

[shagdrum]

Your comparison's are irrelevant. Global Warming is happening, that isn't in question. What is in question, how 'far' will it go and to what level humanaity has/is causing it; that is what needs to be studied.

Best case scenarion, humans are not the culprits to a signficant degree and the rise in temps will be slow and steady, worse case scenario, humans are the major cause and we face rapid changes that will affect us seriously. Do you really want to take the chance that it is strictly the former and just ignore it.

The Comparisons r relevant because what is in question is weather the global warming is caused by man and to what degree (this has not been proven yet). If we r not the cause, then that would suggest that we can do nothing about it. Their is a problem nationally with the debate on this. If we go by your standard then all one side has to do is keep saying that man made warming is still possible and could still have a major negative effect. People r questioning the war because they think (at least in part) that Bush is doing the same thing their.

U have to logically prove that global warming is...
A: Man-made to a signifigant degree
B: presents an actual (not percieved) threat, and;
C: Can be lessed &/or prevented by human action

Just think of what u r opening the door to if u take away that burden of proof...
I could spend all day coming up with wacko senarios that could potentially pose a threat. Heck, just look to sci-fi for that

U don't enact a policy because something "might" threaten us. By your standards any the only limit on threats we should take action on is the human imagination.

If this is your standard, you realize you can not logically oppose Iraq or any action the government takes to "protect" America or its interests...

Will I ignore it? Until there is credible evidence, hell ya I will!!! (there I answered your question)

 

[shagdrum]

I've said this before and I'll say it again: Weather and climate are NOT the same thing. Weather is about local conditions, climate is about large-scale trends on an overall global scale. The fact that local weather can't be predicted more than a few days out has absolutely NOTHING to do with predicting climate change.

Now one can argue that computer models may not be 100% accurate, but to dismiss them due to the fact that the weather guy screwed up the weekend forecast, is either blind ignorance of the science or blatant dishonesty.

The basic techniques used r the same; computer models. The point is this, computer model has an acceptable degree of error in prediction local weather a few days out. When prediction further out, that degree of error multiplies to the point of rendering the model useless. The only difference with climate models is that they have quite a few more variables to account for, therefore the initial degree of error is higher. They also try to predict farther in the future, so that higher initial degree of error is multiplied many, many, many more times. So, yes there is a difference, weather models still have some relevance (due to smaller degree of error and less multiplication of said degree) while computer models to predict the climate are completely irelevant (due to larger initial degree of error and larger multiplication of that degree over time).

The difference between local weather forcast models and climate models only serves to strenghen the case against models. U just helped my point, thanks.

 

[TheDude]

The Comparisons r relevant because what is in question is weather the global warming is caused by man and to what degree (this has not been proven yet). If we r not the cause, then that would suggest that we can do nothing about it. Their is a problem nationally with the debate on this. If we go by your standard then all one side has to do is keep saying that man made warming is still possible and could still have a major negative effect. People r questioning the war because they think (at least in part) that Bush is doing the same thing their.

U have to logically prove that global warming is...
A: Man-made to a signifigant degree
B: presents an actual (not percieved) threat, and;
C: Can be lessed &/or prevented by human action

Just think of what u r opening the door to if u take away that burden of proof...
I could spend all day coming up with wacko senarios that could potentially pose a threat. Heck, just look to sci-fi for that

U don't enact a policy because something "might" threaten us. By your standards any the only limit on threats we should take action on is the human imagination.

If this is your standard, you realize you can not logically oppose Iraq or any action the government takes to "protect" America or its interests...

Will I ignore it? Until there is credible evidence, hell ya I will!!! (there I answered your question)

Yes, that is the question(s); yes, it [man's role] hasn't been proven. I never claimed otherwise. But to ignore it and not be willing to at least research the issue further is down right "retarded", considering "Global Warming" is factual.

 

[Marcus]

The point I am making, is that, logically the burden of proof has to primary, before the degree of any potential threat is to be considered. Basically, u r reversing the same logic that liberals and libertarians use against the Patriot Act and the war in Iraq.

Actually, no. Liberals and Libertarians' (thank you for recognizing that it's not just liberals) objections to parts of the Patriot Act and the Iraq war don't have anything to do with "waiting until there is absolute proof of a threat". The objections, at least for me, stems from my not buying the stated rationales for them, and from the huge potential for abuse (unchecked police powers in the case of the Patriot Act, unchecked war profiteering in the case of Iraq). In other words, I believe the real, unstated, reasons for each were far more insidious. On the flip side, conservatives accuse global warming "alarmists" of wanting to force some sort of anti-capitalist, one-world-government political agenda on everyone. I've yet to see any evidence of that whatsoever, so of course I disagree. Either of us could be right or wrong. I happen to think I'm right. Go figure.

 

[MAC1]

Some scientists claim it's too late to do anything about global warming. One reason is that technology does not yet exist to decrease CO2 emissions to the degree that scientists and global warming alarmists, like Al Gore, view as necessary to stop or even substantially decrease the rate of increases in temperatures. Until solar energy advances another step or two it will not be utilized to the satisfaction of global warming advocates. So ultimately, until effective and efficient clean technology is developed it's really just about politics rather than substance. Al Gore will continue to use 10 times the electricity everyone else uses and ride around in gas guzzling plans yet preach about how everyone needs to leave the car home and cut back on so-called fossil fuel use. He'll continue to push for broad sweeping legislation based on a theory which, despite what he says, is nothing more than a theory and most likely a false alarm--at least to the degree that global warming allegedly poses a serious threat.

 

[shagdrum]

Yes, that is the question(s); yes, it [man's role] hasn't been proven. I never claimed otherwise. But to ignore it and not be willing to at least research the issue further is down right "retarded", considering "Global Warming" is factual.

Never said it shouldn't be researched.
Action, in the form of restrictive policy isn't yet justified, until it is proved conclusively that global warming is a large threat that is caused in large part by certian actions by man. I actually think more research needs to be done, as well as open, honest debate. Models need to be thrown out, as they r unreliable. More concrete research methods need to be used.

Basically, before we start enacting restrictive policy, healthy skepticism is called for in the justifying of that policy.

 

[shagdrum]

Actually, no. Liberals and Libertarians' (thank you for recognizing that it's not just liberals) objections to parts of the Patriot Act and the Iraq war don't have anything to do with "waiting until there is absolute proof of a threat". The objections, at least for me, stems from my not buying the stated rationales for them, and from the huge potential for abuse (unchecked police powers in the case of the Patriot Act, unchecked war profiteering in the case of Iraq). In other words, I believe the real, unstated, reasons for each were far more insidious. On the flip side, conservatives accuse global warming "alarmists" of wanting to force some sort of anti-capitalist, one-world-government political agenda on everyone. I've yet to see any evidence of that whatsoever, so of course I disagree. Either of us could be right or wrong. I happen to think I'm right. Go figure.

Sorry, not trying to put words in your mouth...
This is the arguement I get from watching libs on TV and the libertarians I personally know. in both cases, it has been argued that the "facts" to support the policy can't and /or haven't been proven. I find it hypocritical to say that in one instance, the facts behind the policy aren't as important as the threat, while in another instance the fact behind the policy MUST BE air tight. Different logic applied with no justification for it outside of petty politics, IMHO.

If the burden for proof is secondary to the level of percieved threat to justify action, then u don't have to prove anything! Just fearmonger to get what u want.

 

[Fleet]

And FOX and the Weekly Standard etc. don't lean to the right.

Can't you RWWs stand up for anything without blaming the "liberal MSM"??

Who's placing blame? I'm just pointing out that the huge majority of the MSM is left wing and that about 75% of the MSM is anti-Bush.
So, it's ONE news station (Fox) VS ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN... real fair!
It seems that liberals can't stand the fact that not only is there one lone non-left leaning news station, but it is easily beating out all of the other ones in the ratings!