BS: Global warming?

Subject: BS: Global warming?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 May 06 - 07:05 PM

The latest images could provide evidence that Jupiter is in the midst of a global change that can modify temperatures by as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit on different parts of the globe.

The study was led jointly by Imke de Pater and Philip Marcus of University of California, Berkeley.

"The storm is growing in altitude," de Pater said. "Before when they were just ovals they didn't stick out above the clouds. Now they are rising."

This growth signals a temperature increase in that region, she said.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2006-05-04-jupiter-jr-spot_x.htm

The global change cycle began when the last of the white oval-shaped storms formed south of the Great Red Spot in 1939. As the storms started to merge between 1998 and 2000, the mixing of heat began to slow down at that latitude and has continued slowing ever since.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Bill D
Date: 05 May 06 - 09:52 PM

well! Those polar bears on Jupiter are obviously in for a rough time! Not to mention the resort developers.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Amos
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 07:03 PM

On Monday, former Vice President Al Gore and his climate change awareness organization, the Alliance for Climate Protection, launched a $300 million, three-year campaign to teach "people in the US and around the world that the climate crisis is both urgent and solvable." The "We" campaign "aims to enlist 10 million volunteers through a combination of network and cable commercials, display adsÉand online social networks." Funding for the campaign includes Gore's Nobel Peace Prize money and all the profits from his documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth."

ÊThe campaign will launch televison advertisements later this week that "will team up offbeat celebrity couples who may not have much in common but share a belief that it is important to address climate change." These "unlikely alliances" include House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and former Speaker Newt Gingrich, the outspoken pastors Al Sharpton and Pat Robertson, and the Dixie Chicks and Toby Keith, country music stars on opposite sides of the partisan divide.

GREAT GREENWASH: While spending $100 million per year is remarkable for an issue-based public advocacy campaign, it is dwarfed by the $700 billion market in annual corporate advertising and public relations spending.ÊThe companies in the polluting sectors, such as energy, transportation, agribusiness, chemical, and manufacturing, recognize the economic stakes of fighting climate legislation. Their efforts involve public campaigns that "greenwash" their environmental record, arguing that global warming is not their fault. For example, the "clean" coal industry is sponsoring a $20 million lobbying campaign by the National Mining Association and a $40 million astroturfing campaign by front group Americans for Balanced Energy Choices. The American Clean Skies Foundation, a "clean" natural gas industry front group, is launching a "multi-million dollar media advocacy campaign" on Earth Day. The "ultra-clean" auto industry trade group Alliance for Automobile Manufacturers runs its "Discover the Alternatives" campaign -- while lobbying against increased fuel economy standards and filing suit against the regulation of tailpipe greenhouse emissions.ÊThe "clean" nuclear industry has establishedtheÊClean and Safe Energy Coalition to promote nuclear's low global warming footprint -- while ignoring the unsolved problem of radioactive waste.

Big Oil's $100 million trade organization, the American Petroleum Institute, spends millions a year promoting projects like the "Energy Tomorrow" campaign -- which blames ethanol for rising fuel prices -- and buying goodwill from science teachers, environmental groups, volunteer organizations, and even bloggers, all while lobbying to keep billion-dollar tax breaks for oil companies.

(Progress Report e-letter)

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: the lemonade lady
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 07:37 PM

I found this on another thread ...

'...the link to the graph posted is another example of emotive, contorted poppycock largely orchestrated by bearded tree huggers and their good old mates. The graph has been extratacted from the original scientific data based on delta oxygen 18 values in formaminifera, GRIP data,deepsea sediment cores and temperature measurements taken by man dating back to the 18th century. The crucial point is that the graph has been used by you as propaganda to support your cause and it is entirely untrue. The original data included global temperature and it is seen from the data that temperature leads carbon dioxide levels. If you are intelligent enough, try and release your emotions and think about my statement subjectively.Then when you will realise the truth, please come back to me and comment on..

1. Earth's positive and negative feedback mechanisms.
2. The present global mountain ranges, the Tibetan plateau and chemical erosion.
3. The effect of Milankovich cycles
4. The effect of sunspot cycles.
5. The Maunder Minimum.
6. The Worldwide global cooling from 1945 to 1967.
7. The Laki Fissure eruptions.
8. The Cretaceous age and the white cliffs of Dover.
9. Any Governments vested interest to be voted back into power.

Look, this is not an emotional issue, it is all part of a natural progression towards ultimate planetary balance. Human Beings are animals. At present this animal is reaping havoc and chaos on all biodiverity. It was no different 70 million years ago in the Cretaceous. I wouldn't have liked to be bitten and eaten alive by a raptor, would you?

We have passed peak oil producion and within the next few decades or until America unleashes it's new hidden technology, human beings as a species will either become extinct or diminish to such an extent that biodiversity will find its own balance.

All that is important here is, we understand that the earth is in perpetual balance, and when a species dies it is easily replaced by another. We are so insignificant in consideration of geologic and evolutionary time. So please don't worry yourself, Mother Earth has always had it sussed.'

Kinda relevant

sal

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 08:22 PM

I am becoming increasingly annoyed by the semantically incorrect term 'warming'...

"Warming' implies to most normal people something like putting heat under a saucepan or water, which seems to become uniformly hot (actually it doesn't on a microscopic scale, even when boiling.... but that's for another conspiracy thread!) ... leading to the constant stream of idiotic comments - "Wow! lowest temp in 50 years - hey - so much for global warming!" & "Wow! highest rainfall for 100 years - hey - so much for global warming!"...

The term 'GW' refers to the increase in total energy of the system - which then leads to more turbulence - consequently the theory really predicts greater LOCAL temp ranges - both higher AND lower temps, as well as both areas of LOCAL increased & decreased rainfall .... sigh!

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Amos
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 08:30 PM

Sal:

I don't think your informant i addressing the statistics correctly.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 08:31 PM

Jupiter doesn't work well as a model for what's going on in the rest of the solar system, particularly for the terrestrial planets like Earth. A gas giant can be considered a sort of "proto-star," or a potential star that didn't make it because it just didn't manage to accumulate enough mass for sufficiently powerful nuclear reactions to ignite in its core.   But it's interesting to note that, unlike terrestrial planets that absorb energy from the sun and reflect a small percentage of it, Jupiter is actually emitting more energy than it absorbs. This indicates that it may have nuclear reactions taking place in its core, nowhere near enough for it to be even remotely considered a star, but enough to effect the temperature of the planet in general.

So one can't point at Jupiter and say, "See? Global warming is happening all through the solar system" (sorry—not the case!) "so it can't be caused by human activity. Go right ahead, buy that gas-guzzling SUV and pollute the atmosphere all you want."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Amos
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 08:40 PM

BTW, Sal, what is the "hidden technology" your informant is waiting for America to unleash?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 08:42 PM

Whether global warming is human-caused, the result of natural cycles, or some combination of the two is irrelevant. Acting as if it is human-caused and doing what we can to reverse damage we may have caused has benefits beyond the scope of the global warming issue alone.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 08:52 PM

"what is the "hidden technology" your informant is waiting for America to unleash?"

Basically ANY mastabatory fantasy that will get us out of the current mess without any negative effects....

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: the lemonade lady
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 08:15 AM

'BTW, Sal, what is the "hidden technology" your informant is waiting for America to unleash?' Um... if I knew that it wouldn't be hidden!

Sal

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: GUEST,Jim Martin
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 08:27 AM

Just getting rid of GWB & replacing with Obama would be a good start!

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: GUEST,Jim Martin
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 08:32 AM

See this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/2008/03/we_lose_in_greed_game.html

---

Jim, please select the most appropriate thread in which to post your links. Duplicate postings will be deleted. -Admin

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Doc John
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 11:40 AM

When we have good photographs of the surface of the greenhouse plated Venus, I expect to see wrecked Boeings, rows of abandoned 4X4 and a whole lot of discarded patio heaters. Add to the list anything you don't actually like.
Dr John

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 05:00 PM

I mentioned the possibility on a thread some time back and was told that I was a raving alarmist, totally insane, and full of bovine excrement, not just by the global warming doubters and self-appointed debunkers, but by some folks who are concerned about it and should have known better, but still told me that I was being ridiculously excessive.

Nevertheless, more than one astronomer and planetologist whose writings I have read have ventured the opinion that, even though it's a remote possibility, it is nevertheless possible that, between natural cycles and human activity, a runaway greenhouse effect could be precipitated here on earth—the same planetary catastrophe that made Venus the way it is:   hotter than a pizza oven and uninhabitable by earth-type critters. And when and if a runaway greenhouse effect gets started, there is no way of reversing it. That's what's meant by "runaway."

And here's the fun part:   nobody knows for certain just where that tipping-point might be, but knowledgible planetologists have opined that it is quite probably much earlier than most people would assume.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 06:51 PM

And, Don, there is no current way to tell if we have already passed that point - yet...

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 07:42 PM

Exactly!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Keith Cunningham
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 05:18 AM

Mornin everybody,

Amid all the public relations hype relating to the causes of global warming we haven't heard much about dealing with the people who are the real cause of the whole mess i.e. the manufacturers of the machines which are blasting the carbon dioxide into our atmosphere. They sell their jumbo jets, giant air-buses, cruise liners and fat-belly four-by fours to thick-walleted businessmen and politicians meanwhile ensuring that the finger of supercilious rectitude is being wagged at the ordinary users who, because they have poured so much of their financial substance into the purchase of these goods(?) cannot afford to buy the PR clout which ought to be unleashed upon the captains of the polluting industries, their bankers, and their political toadies.

I attended a PR course once, and the lad who was running it claimed that venting and servicing a big industrial chiller was the equivalent of trashing a million fridges, and that the rabbiting-on about aerosols etc. was a PR scheme to divert attention away from the indusrialists' contribution to ozone depletion.

What an opportunity global warming offers for motor manufacturers. We suspect that their products are responsible for a lot of atmospheric pollution so what will they do? They'll make even MORE of them. They'll get more miles per gallon and be more environmentally friendly, but how much pollution will be unleashed upon the world during the manufacture of the blasted things and their transportation to the point of sale, and how much pollution will be cause by the trashing of the old ones?

And why not build bigger aeroplanes eh? Why kill only a couple of hundred people when we could kill a thousand? It has been claimed that a bigger plane is better for the environment because it will give off less carbon per passenger mile. No worries there then, except that the airlines will probably need to multiply the number of passengers in order to make them profitable. There will be so many giant aircraft that there won't be enough customers to fill them, and airline press gangs will roam the streets around our airports dragging defenceless members of the public away to occupy seats on their planes.

Anyway, perhaps it is now time to point out that carbon dioxide is exactly what it says on the tin. One part carbon and two parts oxygen. When you burn a hydrocarbon with oxygen you get carbon dioxide, water, and a funny smell. Fine, but hang on a minute. The oxgen you used up during the combustion process may have been the very atoms you or your offspring might need to allow them one last breath in this world. A lot the rest of it will, as part of the carbon dioxide compound, have been dissolved by the rain and ended up in the sea to be used to make bones and shells for the denizens of the deep (and the shallows). Eventually these denizens will snuff it and our oxygen will end up in carbonates on the sea bed. And a fat lot of use it'll be to us then, because it's going to take millions of years of tectonical bumping and grinding before some volcano punts it back into the air.

Ozone, a triatomic form of oxygen, is formed by the action of ultraviolet radiation upon the oxygen content of the stratosphere. In recent years we have heard a lot about ozone holes. Question; are the holes in the ozone layer forming because there isn't enough UV, or because there isn't enough oxygen?

But, looking on the bright side, global warming will bring some benefits one of which pleases me immensely. Polar bears will become an endangered species, and so they should be. Nasty vicious things! Away with them, I say, and away also with crocodiles and elephants.

And whales.

Yours sincerely,

Norman Castle.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 10:37 AM

"There will be so many giant aircraft that there won't be enough customers to fill them, and airline press gangs will roam the streets around our airports dragging defenceless members of the public away to occupy seats on their planes."

Truly Truth is stranger than fiction....

Flybe 'hire actors' to fill up planes

Flybe 'hire actors' to fill up planes

LORNA MARSH

30 March 2008 11:39

Norwich airport bosses were today at war with Flybe after the budget carrier advertised for actors to falsely bump up passenger numbers in a bid to get a bonus.

Richard Jenner, MD of Norwich International, said that he was "absolutely shocked" at the airline's money-spinning plan of using bogus passengers to fill extra flights and reach its quota, saying it was "underhand" at a cost to the environment.

As people across the globe prepared for Earth Hour Flybe chiefs admitted laying on extra flights to Dublin in a bid to reach the figures required to earn an extra £280,000 from Norwich airport even though it had already been promised half that amount for getting close to the full quota.

[More...]
~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm not making this up you know...

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: the lemonade lady
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 06:47 AM

The Mail on Sunday I think ...Definately worth a read

Sal

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: GUEST,Jim Martin
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 07:36 AM

The fact remains that whether or not global warming is taking place, the biodiversity of the planet is taking one hell of a hammering due to human actions, consciously or otherwise!

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 08:04 AM

The Earth, as a planet, has no feelings one way or another, whether any particular group of organisms stick around for very long. However we might...

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: GUEST,Jim Martin
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 12:10 PM

It was the consciousness (or otherwise) of human actions I was referring to.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 12:16 PM

beardedbruce and ms lemon's links are some of the reasons I think it's a mistake to focus entirely on global warming as a reason to move away from fossil fuels as a way of producing energy. There are many other reasons that are equally compelling that nobody disputes. The myriad problems associated with pollution, for instance. We need to eliminate the use of fossil fuels entirely. That is a fact not in dispute.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: pdq
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 12:22 PM

"We need to eliminate the use of fossil fuels entirely. That is a fact not in dispute."

I think "that is a dispute not in fact" would be more accurate.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 12:26 PM

What is your dispute with my statement, pdq?

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: pdq
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 12:39 PM

The use of the word "entirely" is not reasonable at all.

The term "fossil fuel" applies to coal, but not oil. I was an organic chem major for a while, and, though there is disagreemnt among scientists, many recognise oil as the product of heat and pressure deep in the Earth.

Corbon dioxide is not a pollutant. In the early days of life on Earth, oxygen was the pollutant and CO2 was necessary for life.

Actually, I am not sure what is meant by "pollution". Burning wood in most parts of the world is the natural thing to do. Forests were burning away for millions of years before Man figured he had to put fires out. Wood fires may be wrong in the Los Angeles basin, but not here in the vast expanses of the Great Basin.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 01:00 PM

Okay, I've just burned up another piece of my life reading this frikkin' thread...and you're still ALL wrong! Every danged last one of you. You heard me. All of you. Yeah. You're wrong. So there. Dead wrong. Bloody well wrong to the nines!

Let's fight about it. He who reaches 50,000 words first and hits "submit" wins.

Go!   ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 01:35 PM

It is the burning of fossil fuels and the by-products being poured into the atmosphere that is one of the major cause of global warming, and this matter is not in dispute, except by those who have a vested interest in the continued use of fossil fuels—oil companies, coal companies, etc. So the two issues are inextricably linked.

The very conservative Jerry Pournelle, a well-known science fiction writer who has solid science credentials (two PhDs), has worked in the aerospace industry, was a science advisor to President Ronald Reagan (Citizens' Advisory Council on National Space Policy), and was an advocate for SDI—as I said, very conservative—once made the statement that fossil fuels are a limited resource, and when it's gone, it's gone. And, he goes on to say, there are so many essential products made from petroleum, including everything from life-saving pharmaceuticals to the barrels of ball-point pens, that "to deplete the diminishing supply of oil by burning it to produce energy, especially when you consider the non-polluting, renewable alternatives that are available, is a crime against the future!"

And that from hard-charging conservative—but one who is very knowledgeable about matters of astronomy and (most relevant in this context) planetology.

Far from costing jobs, cutting down sharply on the use of fossil fuels and developing renewable alternatives will create jobs and stimulate the economy. The elimination of global warming causing pollution from fossil fuels and the creation of new non-polluting industry (profits to be made!). Two for the price of one. Why are business-oriented conservatives against this?

One reason I would hypothesize is a short-sighted tendency to concentrate on the next quarterly report and immediate profit rather than planning intelligently for even better returns in the future.

Don Firth

P. S. Some wag once made the comment that "We'll have solar power when someone figures out a way to run a sunbeam through a meter!"

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 01:41 PM

I said 50,000 words. You're not even close, man. Go back to the end of the line.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: the lemonade lady
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 01:42 PM

NOOOOOO!!!!! PDQ You are the man speaking the most sence here.
Every one else believes what they are told by the governments and not looking into the science of it all. Read my link again.

Sal

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Amos
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 01:43 PM

Excessive CO2 is not a pollutant, except that it has a significant effect in exacerbating the greenhouse effect.

Maybe your organic chem studies didn't incllude that part.

And if petroleum does not come from organic carbon, which is arguable, it would still cause bad effects when being burned -- such as NiOx by products, and greenhosue effects -- AND still draw down a limited resource when used.

So the point is really moot as far as global warming is concerned.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: pdq
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 01:43 PM

Sometimes one word, the correct answer, will trump 50,000 words of opinion and BS.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: pdq
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 01:57 PM

fact: The amount of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere lags behind the temperature increase, not the other way around.

fact: Plants take in CO2 and give back O2. More carbon dioxide is a good thing overall, especially since it will cause crops, actually plants in general, to thrive.

fact: There has been absolutely no increase in atmospheric temperature since 1995. With the extremely sophisticated measuring equipment we have in this modern time, we would surely have noticed it if it existed.

fact: Most of the loss of biodiversity if from overpopulation. We now have 6.8 billion people and the growth may not even slow much until we get to 12 billion. Fortunately, most of us will be gone by then and will not have to see the wars, famine on disease that will result.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 02:02 PM

"Sometimes one word, the correct answer, will trump 50,000 words of opinion and BS."

SHHH!!!!

Oh, you are a real troublemaker aren't you, pdq? An out and out subversive! Well, we have ways of dealing with you, my friend. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 02:17 PM

Ok, I'll change my terminology. The burning of carbon based fuels causes many kinds of pollution - carbon monoxide being only one - that are causing enormous health and environmental problems all over the world. Also, the process of extracting and transporting carbon based fuels such as coal and oil are causing an enormous amount of pollution. The wars that are being waged for these resources have a devastating effect on human life as well as on the environment.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: pdq
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 02:52 PM

A tiny correction still may be needed. It is the money generated by carbon-based resources that leads to war and human suffering.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 03:13 PM

My statement was accurate, and so is yours, pdq.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 03:18 PM

Substantiation for those "facts," pdq? Sources, please.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Amos
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 03:19 PM

AL Gore, speaking at TED, has opened a new presentation on the exacerbation of global warming: link here.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Amos
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 03:22 PM

"In Al Gore's brand-new slideshow (premiering exclusively on TED.com), he presents evidence that the pace of climate change may be even worse than scientists were recently predicting, and challenges us to act with a sense of "generational mission" -- the kind of feeling that brought forth the civil rights movement -- to set it right. Gore's stirring presentation is followed by a brief Q&A in which he is asked for his verdict on the current political candidates' climate policies and on what role he himself might play in future. " (Precis on the site linked above).

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Amos
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 04:00 PM

I swan it could make your head explode if you didn't have a tough hide:

"An online ABC News article on the "surrogate wars" of this year's presidential election quoted Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), an ardent supporter of Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) candidacy, saying that McCain has "earned a reputation…of doing things that put the country ahead of party." As an example, Graham cited McCain's environmental record, claiming that it's stronger that former Vice President Al Gore's:

"He's not going to run away from President Bush but at the end of the day, John McCain has earned a reputation, and has the scars to show it, of doing things that put the country ahead of party," Graham said, noting McCain has differed with the party on immigration, his desire to close Guantanamo Bay, and enacting robust climate change policies.

"Climate change is the road less traveled but he's traveled it even more than Al Gore," Graham said. "Al Gore has talked about it and deserves great recognition but he was around here a long time and never introduced a bill."

On its face, Graham's claim is laughable. But digging deeper into the substance, it rings of pure absurdity. In fact, Gore held the first congressional hearings on climate change in the late 1970s, well before McCain was even elected to Congress.

In 1997, Gore helped broker the Kyoto Protocol which called for nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Despite the passing of a Senate resolution stating that the U.S should not join Kyoto, Gore symbolically signed the protocol in November, 1998. While McCain voted for the resolution condemning Kyoto, he claims today that "we have an obligation" to cut greenhouse gases but still thinks the U.S. "did the right thing by not joining the Kyoto treaty."

Moreover, the evidence shows that McCain is confused on environmental issues. He now supports ethanol despite previously criticizing it. McCain has talked tough on capping carbon emissions but failed to even vote on key Senate legislation addressing the issue. Furthermore, he doesn't seem to understand his own position on cap-and-trade:

In the Republican debate in Florida, he denied that his cap-and-trade program included a mandatory cap on carbon. (One wonders what he thought that first word was doing in there.) He has said he won't support a cap-and-trade bill unless it includes extra support for nuclear power (because nuclear power is low-carbon), not seeming to grok the fact that the whole point of a cap-and-trade program is to raise prices on carbon, offering a de facto subsidy to all low-carbon options. ..."

Huffington Post

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: pdq
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 04:09 PM

Borrowing katlaughing's favorite trick to stifle discussion, are we, unca Donald? You do some research that proves me wrong and I will listen.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 04:19 PM

You know better than that, pdq. You made the assertions, claiming them to be "facts," so the burden of proof is yours.

Why are you reluctant to name them? Are you afraid your sources (presuming there are any, beyond your own opinion) are insufficiently authoritative?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: pdq
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 04:25 PM

Just because you can't get scientific facts frome MoveOn.org or Mother Jones News does not mean you cannot find them if you look. Nice way to keep you out of trouble, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 04:26 PM

Why isn't Ron Davies also here demanding "proof"? Is the poor guy sick or something?

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 04:52 PM

What a wonderful presentation. What a tragedy that Gore has not been in our government for a decade. But what an opportunity we have now. As he says, we, as a civilization, have the opportunity to become the generation that future people will celebrate.
However, if Gore and people like him don't get into government in this next election the opportunity diminishes dramatically, imo.

Al Gore is adamant about the fundamentals. He has a great line in there, something like: Tapping into tar sands and shale oil is the energy equivalent of a junkie, when the veins in his arms and legs collapse, finding and utilizing veins in his toes.

A new body, The Alliance for Climate Protection, or something like that, is being formed.

Do take the time to watch the presentation, folks.

Thank you, Amos.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: pdq
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 05:01 PM

Actually, from the point of view of the law, fase statements are to be considered rare and abhorrant. Therefore, testimony given must be assumed truthful until it is substantially impeached.

I did get bill Monroe's birthday wrong, but that was because I took it "off the top of my head". I also misstated the amount of money a single working person could earn before paying any taxes under the George W. Bush tax reduction plan. I said it was 30K when it was closer to 28K. Again, not a mortal sin.

I will put my record of accuracy up against any Mudcat member, except Teribus.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 05:06 PM

Within my experience, if someone asserts something as a fact and is challenged on it, those folks who have substantiation for there assertions are only too happy to cite it. Those who are asserting an opinion as a "fact" frequently get a bit hinky about it when challenged, and often try to divert the discussion from the weakness of their argument by accusing the challenger of trying to stifle debate.

It's a long-established principle of rational debate (Aristotle, I believe) that the person who makes the assertion bears the burden of proof.

I do not get my "scientific facts frome MoveOn.org or Mother Jones News." Neither do I get them from Rush Linbaugh or Fox News Service.   

Where do you get your scientific "facts?" That's all I.m asking. And it's a fair question to ask you to provide support for what you assert are "facts."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming?
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Apr 08 - 05:12 PM

Facts that originate in one's own head and heart, Don, are much more fun. :)