Hot Arctic

[monsoon]

This discusson on evolution is going nowhere in this topic as the basics of evolution are simply being ignored.

The bottom line is that scientists, even ones sanctioned by our government have concluding that Global Warming is occuring and that humans are responsible. If anyone chooses to ignore that then please present the scientific evidence the refutes their findings or please go stick your head in the sand somewhere as these silly rebuttles are a waste of time here.

[runawayjim]

This discusson on evolution is going nowhere in this topic as the basics of evolution are simply being ignored.

The bottom line is that scientists, even ones sanctioned by our government have concluding that Global Warming is occuring and that humans are responsible. If anyone chooses to ignore that then please present the scientific evidence the refutes their findings or please go stick your head in the sand somewhere as these silly rebuttles are a waste of time here.

i've posted the article about the scientists that refute it and was basically laughed... yet all the global warming fanboys don't seem to laugh at the science that used PAINTINGS.

i'm an environmentalist, yet i am still skeptical of the whole global warming thing... especially when a "study" takes 6 months (which is about how long the government sanctioned study lasted). this kind of study requires many years before you can get any sort of real evidence.

global warming is still a theory.

antarctic not warming

arctic not warming at an alarming rate

should i continue?

[monsoon]

should i continue?

Well, when you find some reputable information. The links that you cite are from Junkscience.com operated by Steven Millory who is not a scientist. You should read this about that organization. He has an agenda that is not backed up by independent scientific analysis, but rather, money from big corporations.

It is easy to find stuff like this on the internet, but because it is there, doesn't mean it is true, credible or should be taken seriously.

[dimebag1980]

Wiki is as Wiki does.

That type of website has good uses, but can also be a cesspool of erroneous information.

By the way, I recall reading on some reliable source a few years back that the notion of Global Warming originally began as junk science that science got really carried away with. Not saying anyone here is wrong, but I do recall reading that. And before anyone goes asking me to post proof, remember I said I read it a few years back. There's no way for me to remember what website I read it on, but I do recall that it was, at least at the time, known to be a reliable news website.

[monsoon]

Again the National Academy of Science has said there is Global Warming. It is not a wiki. Junkscience.com has said 1.5 years ago there is no Global Warming. It is not a wiki either.

Who are you going to believe? One of the most prestigious group of scientists in the country, or for that matter the world, or a single individual who is is a paid lobbiest by corporations interested in the status quo?

A Wiki is a self editing set of information that posts known information. It does not do scientific studies but does post about them. I have said before that information on a wiki is not definitive, but the link I posted above gives the background of the party who runs JunkScience. I am more than happy to hear any corrections to Steven Millory's qualifications on this subject.

[dimebag1980]

Again the National Academy of Science has said there is Global Warming. It is not a wiki. Junkscience.com has said 1.5 years ago there is no Global Warming. It is not a wiki either.

Who are you going to believe? One of the most prestigious group of scientists in the country, or for that matter the world, or a single individual who is is a paid lobbiest by corporations interested in the status quo?

A Wiki is a self editing set of information that posts known information. It does not do scientific studies but does post about them. I have said before that information on a wiki is not definitive, but the link I posted above gives the background of the party who runs JunkScience. If you think it is incorrect, then please post why you think it is incorrect.

If you're talking directly to me, metro, be advised that I never said that website was incorrect. All I said was "That type of website has good uses, but can also be a cesspool of erroneous information." I never said anything about that site in particular, because to be quite honest I didn't read it as it was completely uninteresting to me (yawn.) I'm sure it's the same old, tired stuff about a junk science that's been blown way out of proportion.

[monsoon]

I was not talking directly to you. Sorry for the confusion. I should have been more careful in how I wrote that response.

[intcvlcphlga]

Is it not selfish of us, as both a species and a generation, to effectively hasten the destruction of a habitat not only ourselves but also our children and grandchildren as well as millions of species of animals, flora, fauna, etc.?

Given a few of the forumers' knowledge of Jeffersonian principles, they will no doubt be familiar with his belief in considering the needs of the seventh succeeding generation when making decisions. In a letter to James Madison in 1789, he wrote "No man can by natural right oblige the lands he occupied, or the persons who succeed him in that occupation, to the payment of debts contracted by him. For if he could, he might during his own life, eat up the usufruct* of the lands for several generations to come, and then the lands would belong to the dead, and not to the living, which would be reverse of our principle. What is true of every member of society individually, is true of them all collectively, since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of individuals."

If we are so cavalier as to defend our right to bear arms with a quote from Thomas Jefferson then are we equally brave in defending the world that we will bequeath to our children and the subsequent six generations with a quote from Thomas Jefferson? I will do both. I will defend the right of Americans to bear arms to protect themselves, their families and their property from intrusion or as a last resort to topple a tyrannical regime. All I ask is that Americans do their part to defend the environment. Being a good steward of the environment doesn't take much if everyone does a little bit. Maybe it means replacing their SUV with a more fuel-efficient car, taking mass-transportation, walking or bicycling. It might mean opening a window and running a fan instead of an air conditioner. Most generations have been asked to sacrifice something - what have we been asked...perhaps this is it?

*Usufruct - n. The right to use and enjoy the profits and advantages of something belonging to another as long as the property is not damaged or altered in any way.

[runawayjim]

the national academy of science is a government organization. i don't trust what our government says. i hardly believe they are the most presigious group of scientists in the world as they are only american scientists and they were formed by our government, not by a scientific body.

and again. it sounds like you didn't read much other than the headline about their research. please do me a favor and read about their actual study. i don't know how much you know about science, but i know this much... any study that could possibly show any sort of conclusive evidence about something like global warming would take much longer than 6 months and would never include (or at least admit including) paintings as part of their research.

so since junkscience.com is wrong, is all that evidence they pointed out completely false? or just partially false because it refutes global warming? it seems to me that you're not going to accept any sort of proof scientific or otherwise that might suggest that global warming is a theory that should not be taken with a grain of salt.

show me actual scientific studies that prove that global warming is occurring and that it's all because of humans and not at all because of natural climatic cycles. actual studies do not include anything from cnn.com, yahoo.com, reuters.com, bbc.co.uk, etc. they also do not include nature.com, anything released by greenpeace or the sierra club, or anything sponsored by any government. and they certainly do not use paintings as evidence.

while we're playing the wiki game...

looks like sourcewatch isn't 100% accurate either. again, i am not a conservative, i am a liberal and i am most definitely an environmentalist. however, i am anything but an idealist.

[runawayjim]

Is it not selfish of us, as both a species and a generation, to effectively hasten the destruction of a habitat not only ourselves but also our children and grandchildren as well as millions of species of animals, flora, fauna, etc.?

Given a few of the forumers' knowledge of Jeffersonian principles, they will no doubt be familiar with his belief in considering the needs of the seventh succeeding generation when making decisions. In a letter to James Madison in 1789, he wrote "No man can by natural right oblige the lands he occupied, or the persons who succeed him in that occupation, to the payment of debts contracted by him. For if he could, he might during his own life, eat up the usufruct* of the lands for several generations to come, and then the lands would belong to the dead, and not to the living, which would be reverse of our principle. What is true of every member of society individually, is true of them all collectively, since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of individuals."

If we are so cavalier as to defend our right to bear arms with a quote from Thomas Jefferson then are we equally brave in defending the world that we will bequeath to our children and the subsequent six generations with a quote from Thomas Jefferson? I will do both. I will defend the right of Americans to bear arms to protect themselves, their families and their property from intrusion or as a last resort to topple a tyrannical regime. All I ask is that Americans do their part to defend the environment. Being a good steward of the environment doesn't take much if everyone does a little bit. Maybe it means replacing their SUV with a more fuel-efficient car, taking mass-transportation, walking or bicycling. It might mean opening a window and running a fan instead of an air conditioner. Most generations have been asked to sacrifice something - what have we been asked...perhaps this is it?

*Usufruct - n. The right to use and enjoy the profits and advantages of something belonging to another as long as the property is not damaged or altered in any way.

would it be considered selfish to try to make the human species last forever? nature is going to continue doing what it does long after we're gone from this planet. nature has the power to destroy our species. if we cause that destruction, there is no one to blame but ourselves. i truly believe that nature will balance everything out... even if that means destroying our species.

[monsoon]

the national academy of science is a government organization. i don't trust what our government says. i hardly believe they are the most presigious group of scientists in the world as they are only american scientists and they were formed by our government, not by a scientific body.=

But you trust junkscience.com which is owned by a paid lobbiest who is not a scientist? Sorry but I am having a difficult time understanding your logic except to think you have decided there is no such thing as global warming and it really doesn't matter what anyone says about it.

If I am wrong about that conclusion, then please review this. To simply dismiss these scientists in lieu of a an commentator for Fox News is folly at best.

[damus]

Is it not selfish of us, as both a species and a generation, to effectively hasten the destruction of a habitat not only ourselves but also our children and grandchildren as well as millions of species of animals, flora, fauna, etc.?

Given a few of the forumers' knowledge of Jeffersonian principles, they will no doubt be familiar with his belief in considering the needs of the seventh succeeding generation when making decisions. In a letter to James Madison in 1789, he wrote "No man can by natural right oblige the lands he occupied, or the persons who succeed him in that occupation, to the payment of debts contracted by him. For if he could, he might during his own life, eat up the usufruct* of the lands for several generations to come, and then the lands would belong to the dead, and not to the living, which would be reverse of our principle. What is true of every member of society individually, is true of them all collectively, since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of individuals."

If we are so cavalier as to defend our right to bear arms with a quote from Thomas Jefferson then are we equally brave in defending the world that we will bequeath to our children and the subsequent six generations with a quote from Thomas Jefferson? I will do both. I will defend the right of Americans to bear arms to protect themselves, their families and their property from intrusion or as a last resort to topple a tyrannical regime. All I ask is that Americans do their part to defend the environment. Being a good steward of the environment doesn't take much if everyone does a little bit. Maybe it means replacing their SUV with a more fuel-efficient car, taking mass-transportation, walking or bicycling. It might mean opening a window and running a fan instead of an air conditioner. Most generations have been asked to sacrifice something - what have we been asked...perhaps this is it?

*Usufruct - n. The right to use and enjoy the profits and advantages of something belonging to another as long as the property is not damaged or altered in any way.

Great post... I've actually been thinking of getting a civic hybrid once I have the money to pay for most of it or even in full. Right now I'm getting by on a 94 olds cutlass craptacular car that has been pretty cheap to maintain thus far..

There's also incentives in CT that allow you to make your money back pretty quickly if you install solar panels on your roof. The Economist also noted that Jersey had good incentives for solar panels.

My gripe, as I've stated, is that the Kyoto Protocol is unfair to us. The lowered pollution here will come at a high monitary cost, and the developing nations like India and China will not have the same restrictions that we have. In effect we'll be screwing ourselves economically just so someone else can pollute the Earth.

Yeah, us Americans haven't been asked of much. I keep bringing up the WW2 generation, but they all pitched into the war effort. What was the last things Americans were asked to do by its leaders?

[monsoon]

would it be considered selfish to try to make the human species last forever? nature is going to continue doing what it does long after we're gone from this planet. nature has the power to destroy our species. if we cause that destruction, there is no one to blame but ourselves. i truly believe that nature will balance everything out... even if that means destroying our species.

Fine. You have made your point known. You don't believe in Global Warming and nobody here is going to convince you otherwise as you have dismissed everyone except junkscience.com which happens to agree with your beliefs.

[monsoon]

My gripe, as I've stated, is that the Kyoto Protocol is unfair to us. The lowered pollution here will come at a high monitary cost, and the developing nations like India and China will not have the same restrictions that we have. In effect we'll be screwing ourselves economically just so someone else can pollute the Earth.

So which is better? To live in the filth of pollution or to spend the money it takes to make the environment better for everyone. China and India are paying dearly for their neglect and I don't want to see that here.

[runawayjim]

Fine. You have made your point known. You don't believe in Global Warming and nobody here is going to convince you otherwise as you have dismissed everyone except junkscience.com which happens to agree with your beliefs.

and you have dismissed any actual scientific evidence that i have posted because it came up in the canadian free press. yet they were actual scientists. so i guess you're going to dismiss anything that refutes global warming because it dismisses the environmentalist agenda.

i am an environmentalist, but i take anything any hardcore environmentalists say with a grain of salt until i see conclusive evidence to support their claims. i have yet to see that with global warming. show me a long term study and i may change my mind, but government mandated studies just don't prove much.

another link just for fun. this one isn't junk science, in fact, it's an article that originally ran in the boston globe.

another link, this one by a scientist

[damus]

So which is better? To live in the filth of pollution or to spend the money it takes to make the environment better for everyone. China and India are paying dearly for their neglect and I don't want to see that here.

We won't. Our regulations will not allow for that much pollution in all of our cities. The worst smog does not compare to what they already have. Would you like for them to continue to get worse as a result of the Kyoto Protocol as even more jobs are shipped over there? I don't think the Kyoto Protocol would result in any net reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions, it just shifts more of it over to the developing nations.

[monsoon]

and you have dismissed any actual scientific evidence that i have posted because it came up in the canadian free press. yet they were actual scientists. so i guess you're going to dismiss anything that refutes global warming because it dismisses the environmentalist agenda.

i am an environmentalist, but i take anything any hardcore environmentalists say with a grain of salt until i see conclusive evidence to support their claims. i have yet to see that with global warming. show me a long term study and i may change my mind, but government mandated studies just don't prove much.

another link just for fun. this one isn't junk science, in fact, it's an article that originally ran in the boston globe.

another link, this one by a scientist

Well the first link was published 8 years ago. That hardly seems relevant now. The second link was a doc file with a virus macro in it, so I did not look at it.

[runawayjim]

Well the first link was published 8 years ago. That hardly seems relevant now. The second link was a doc file with a virus macro in it, so I did not look at it.

the word file opened up fine on my machine and my AV didn't pick anything up.

and 8 years ago, they were still crying about global warming. so i guess i give up.

[dimebag1980]

the word file opened up fine on my machine and my AV didn't pick anything up.

and 8 years ago, they were still crying about global warming. so i guess i give up.

You might as well, it's a futile argument on here. For whatever source you use, a wiki or other source will be posted to counter your opinion. Afterall, this topic is based solely on opinion... it's my opinion that global warming is nothing but hogwash, while it's the opinion of some others that it's real. No matter what your opinion, if someone disagrees with you they can always find some official-looking source to back up their side. That's all this topic has become anyway... my link can beat up your link. Don't sweat it, man, but rather stay true to yourself and don't cave just because someone who simply is very unhappy and loves to argue might disagree with you.

[monsoon]

No that isn't the case. I will state this again.

The USA's most prestigious group of scientists, as sanctioned by our government, have concluded that Global Warming is real, is caused by human activity, and it's predicted consequences are dire for coming generations of humans on this planet, some now living.

This isn't a wiki, an 8 year old link or a paid lobbiest saying this, it is the National Academy of Science. I have yet to see anything posted here that would indicate they are wrong in their assessment. There is no logic in believing old reports, and cries from lobbiests with an agenda to simply dismiss what our leading scientists have to say on the subject. I said earlier that some people will deny that global warming exists even when NYC is flooded and I can see that I am being proven correct.

[damus]

No that isn't the case. I will state this again.

The USA's most prestigious group of scientists, as sanctioned by our government, have concluded that Global Warming is real, is caused by human activity, and it's predicted consequences are dire for coming generations of humans on this planet, some now living.

This isn't a wiki, an 8 year old link or a paid lobbiest saying this, it is the National Academy of Science. I have yet to see anything posted here that would indicate they are wrong in their assessment. There is no logic in believing old reports, and cries from lobbiests with an agenda to simply dismiss what our leading scientists have to say on the subject. I said earlier that some people will deny that global warming exists even when NYC is flooded and I can see that I am being proven correct.

Playing devil's advocate here, but didn't those scientists rush out that report while using paintings as evidence of temperature change? American government backed scientists have been known to give out false information before... like the time they were told to come out with a study proving that pot kills brain cells. They put rats in containers and then filled them up with so much smoke the rats were deprived of oxygen, thus "proving" that pot kills brain cells.

[monsoon]

Ahh, now we have anecdotes about rats on pot.

Sure our government has done lots of bad things and it is irrelevant to the subject at hand. Provide some proof the National Academy of Science has done this or is wrong which is all that I am asking. You have made statements such as this before without being able to back them up.

[runawayjim]

Ahh, now we have anecdotes about rats on pot.

Sure our government has done lots of bad things and it is irrelevant to the subject at hand. Provide some proof the National Academy of Science has done this or is wrong which is all that I am asking. You have made statements such as this before without being able to back them up.

the national academy of science did rush this report. i am guessing you don't have a lot of experience with scientific studies, but most of them, even for the most mundane things, take a few years to complete. a study that takes less than a year should not be considered conclusive and most likely is not considered conclusive by the science community.

give it time for others to refute their claim and read their actual study.

[monsoon]

give it time for others to refute their claim and read their actual study.

Fair enough. The study may be rushed, but it does jive with other very similar independent studies in the UK and Japan.

[runawayjim]

link from 2004 refuting global warming... at least as far as the sensationalized version of it that we hear about in the media and from politicians and environmentalists (and even some scientists)