Discussion in 'Politics and Current Affairs' started by hakr100, Oct 13, 2010.
Thanks for that - I just spat tea all over my keyboard
A great morning laugh. Thanks hakr.
Great read about a fun pair. The witch of wassilla and the... Will did O
Funny. There are quite a few climatologists that disagree with you. But I guess they aren't included in "real" global warming debate, because they disagree with you.
You know what would help people face the facts? Facts.
Unfortunately, this isn't an accurate depiction of what has occurred with the IPCC reports.
1) There is no requirement for expertise in order to participate with the IPCC.
2) Predictions are included in the IPCC report that have absolutely no basis in science whatsoever.
3) Eco Activists have written parts of the reports (not scientists... fictional novelists), and put portions of their fictional books word for word into the report.
4) Scientists with genuine expertise have been rejected from participating in the report, because they do not accept climate change. They have been replaced with eco activists who have patents regarding bicycle helmets.
5) Working Groups 2 and 3 violated ALL of the IPCC's protocols.
6) All discovered errors are towards climate change being more harmful, and being cheaper to deal with (I don't care who you are... all your errors cannot be in one direction by accident).
The IPCC is a joke. Man caused Climate change may truly be an issue, but with science like this...we'll never know for sure.
Getting back on topic...
Anyone else watch the Coons/O'Donnell discussion Wednesday evening on CNN?
I have to know...why did the good Republican citizens of Delaware pick a cipher like O'Donnell to be their senate candidate? She is an uninformed moron, as disconnected from reality as Palin, Bachmann, or Angle.
lol thanks for that
I have before
It gets boring after a while
It still amazes me how the worlds *best* country can be so backwards at times
I remember when I was young how I idolised the US...
Now... I could say, but most people here wouldnt be pleased...
Agreed. It's gets exhausting and time consuming. This is only an online forum site. Not responding doesn't imply that someone's right... or else there would be no end.
You have stated that there is consensus. You have not proven that there is consensus.
I have proven that there is not.
You have not actually addressed a single real issue, aside to say that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong.
But I guess that gets old, as opposed to finding real facts to correct you with.
Still I cant find a reason why we would want to continue burning fossil fuels at the rate we do in the first place though
LMAO. Sarah Palin looks like she actually wore the outfit.
You never did respond to my posts in the other thread about that.
You know, feeding people. Also, cooling the atmosphere.
The majority of climate scientists believe in AGW...
That's not consensus. It's nice to know that you acknowledge dissent to your viewpoint, and still call that consensus.
I'm assuming you are using grid electricity to power the computer you are typing on... that's produced by burning fossil fuels?
I'm assuming you don't walk everywhere you go?
Until you can quit both electricity and riding anything other than a bicycle... you should very well understand why we want to continue burning fossil fuels.
Consensus is not necessary for a generally accepted theory. sometimes it is preferable to have dissent as it forces scientists to explore all possible explanations (and every now and then one of those alternate explanations re-writes the theory).
That's a bit of a stretch don't you think? I don't think he said stop using all fossil fuels, he said stop consuming at the rate we do (which when compared to the rest of the world is quite a bit). I'm a firm believe that at some point, increased demand coupled with higher prices will have a very real effect in the manner in which most americans live. I truly belive that either in mine or my kids lifetimes, the average american will see urban living, in the manner most of the rest of the world defines it, become much more the norm, simply because it makes practical economic sense.
What is your definition of consensus so?
I'm typing off phone
My house uses Airtricity generated energy
Its mostly wind
I walk or get the bus most places
I used to cycle more but its awkward
We aren't really discussing a generally accepted theory, so I don't see where that's valid. We are discussing the myth that there is consensus regarding AGW.
How has he, or you, reduced your actions that require the burning of fossil fuels? He doesn't understand why the world would want to continue burning fossil fuels, but he continues to.
He can't understand why the world would be just like him.
Maybe, but it's doubtful. We need electricity, and we need gas.
If you want to put economic pressures on poor Americans, then yes they will change, but I don't really see putting economic pressure on poor Americans as being a good thing to accomplish ANY goal. It just makes them poorer and more in need of financial assistance.
And urban living isn't the norm around the world because it makes practical economic sense.
It's the norm worldwide, because they have a much higher population density than we do.
Of a list of 240 countries, we are 140th in population density.
The only European countries with a lower population density are : Iceland, Sweden, and Finland
Posts 547 and 552 give two examples of why burning fossil fuels is good.
He presented you with a long list of information that you hadn't heard of before.
You checked out of the discussion, in my opinion, to prevent yourself from having to justify your belief that AGW is real and that there is consensus.
Consensus - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
So, you still burn fossil fuels.
You haven't changed your electric consumption... imagine that.
I cycle 26 miles one way to work. I don't do that because of the environment. I do that for other reasons (health and money savings).
You haven't made any real changes in your life. You still like your electricity and your bus rides.
When you gives those up, then you can talk to the rest of us about why we don't want to do the same.
FYI, I bike 26 miles to work, each way, daily. I don't do it for the environment. I do it for my health.
I have a smaller carbon footprint than you do. Not because of the environment, but because it makes fiscal sense to me.
When you make the true life changes that you expect of everyone else... then you can preach about people wanting to burn fossil fuels.