[cmeisenzahl]

I often hear about how the ice core samples are the alleged smoking gun of global warming.


"Global warming alarmists, however, prefer to estimate pre-industrial CO2 indirectly by means of ice cores, from which they derive the much lower pre-industrial revolution estimate of 280 ppm. The lower estimate makes industrial-era greenhouse gas emissions appear to be dramatically higher.

But Dr. Jaworowski says that the ice core-based CO2 estimates are unreliable."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188176,00.html

[OldManMac]

There you are; we now have the definitive answer on global warming.

[hyteckit]

So instead of 35% higher than 100 years ago, it's 11% higher. Okay, that shows something doesn't it? 10% change in the last 100 years is crazy.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Same article linked below in the Global Warming and NASA thread.

greg

[el chupacabra]

Well this has already been discussed here before. But "global warming" is not correct terminology for the problem. Its "climate change". 'Cuz ya see if you average the temperatures up around the world it isnt that much warmer. The problem is that certain areas of the world are experiencing climate that they haven't seen in thousands of years. Many species that have been around for millions of years, such as Cnidarians, are now going extinct due to rapid ocean temperature changes, that have never accured so quickly before. The problem isn't all due to CO2 either. Right now the arctic is melting due to ozone. http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117....html?from=rss

There's lots of un-credible research out there but that doesn't prove the problem of "climate change" doesn't exist.

[hyteckit]

Steven Milloy, a shill for ExxonMobil. Nuff said.

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20060206&s=thacker020606

I read his article. Shows he knows **** about science and analyzing stats and datasets.

[tie]

cmeisenzahl, why should we care if ExxonMobil says we shouldn't worry about global warming? It's Enron which wrote our national energy policy. If you can find any quotes from Ken Lay, that would be much more convincing.

[Spliffdaddy]

So let's look at the backgrounds of the scientists who support the theory of man-made global warming.

Give me some names.

[FeLiZeCaT]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

So let's look at the backgrounds of the scientists who support the theory of man-made global warming.

Let's look at your background first.

1st question: can you understand the science behind climatology?
2nd question: do you understand all that allready?
3rd question: if you answered yes to the first 2 questions, can you explain what "global warming" is?
4th question: can you argue against it?

Nothing personal. Just checking.

My answers to the first 2 questions is "no" by the way, therefore, no to the last 3.

[Spliffdaddy]

Can you understand the science behind being me?

Do you understand that already?

If you answered yes to the first 2 questions, can you explain what global warming is?

can you argue against it?


So what was your point supposed to be?

You make no sense.

All I want to do is investigate the backgrounds of scientists who believe global warming is real and man-made.

I think I'm qualified to do that.

[NYCFarmboy]

did you ever notice how much the globalwarmmongers WANT there to be proof of global warming even though there is not?

I have my own thoughts why that is, specifically that they are desperate for anything they can twist around to impose their ideology of socialism/shared misery.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

All I want to do is investigate the backgrounds of scientists who believe global warming is real and man-made.

All of them? That's probably a hell of a lot of backgrounds…

[FeLiZeCaT]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Can you understand the science behind being me?

That must be boring. Guess that's why I never heard of it.

Do you understand that already?

Why?

If you answered yes to the first 2 questions, can you explain what global warming is?

I answered no already. Can't you read?

can you argue against it?

ibidem.

So what was your point supposed to be?

You make no sense.

You mean you don't understand logic. That's OK. There is no shame in that. The Worlds acknowledges you for all that it is you are... whatever "that" is...

All I want to do is investigate the backgrounds of scientists who believe global warming is real and man-made.

I think I'm qualified to do that.

If your interest is in their butts, then I guess it would make sense.

Clean up after yourself afterwards will ya?

[FeLiZeCaT]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

did you ever notice how much the globalwarmmongers WANT there to be proof of global warming even though there is not?

Did it ever occured to you that you have no idea what that means?

You need to remember that no one in these threads knows much about the research published on Global Warming.

I'll grant you one thing though: in a debate, facts are useless. What counts, is strength of persuasion. That is why some of the people posting here post only about stuff that THEY know about. Everybody else is pretty much igorant. That explains the vacuity of the argumentation. Unfortunately, that does not stop people from having opinions, or "thougths" about something.

I have my own thoughts why that is, specifically that they are desperate for anything they can twist around to impose their ideology of socialism/shared misery.

See? Exactly what I meant. "Thoughts", but no knowledge of the facts. Denial always appears as a strong opinion (admit it: showing your "background" is quite a statement). Ostrich do that; butt high in the air, and head in the sand. If you put your ear to the ground, you can hear them say: "nothings wrong!" until the bulldozer digs a highway on their denial. But hey, that is life, right?

Obviously, the catastrophe bound people are not that different from apocalyptic-bible cults. The end is nigh, and it smells like gazoline. My guess is that it is much more complicated than that, but I don't know for a fact that there is Global Warming. I am only 40. How can I measure these effects from my own experience?

And I am no scientist so...

BTW, are you?

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally Posted by FeLiZeCaT

Did it ever occured to you that you have no idea what that means?

You need to remember that no one in these threads knows much about the research published on Global Warming.

I'll grant you one thing though: in a debate, facts are useless. What counts, is strength of persuasion. That is why some of the people posting here post only about stuff that THEY know about. Everybody else is pretty much igorant. That explains the vacuity of the argumentation. Unfortunately, that does not stop people from having opinions, or "thougths" about something.



See? Exactly what I meant. "Thoughts", but no knowledge of the facts. Denial always appears as a strong opinion (admit it: showing your "background" is quite a statement). Ostrich do that; butt high in the air, and head in the sand. If you put your ear to the ground, you can hear them say: "nothings wrong!" until the bulldozer digs a highway on their denial. But hey, that is life, right?

Obviously, the catastrophe bound people are not that different from apocalyptic-bible cults. The end is nigh, and it smells like gazoline. My guess is that it is much more complicated than that, but I don't know for a fact that there is Global Warming. I am only 40. How can I measure these effects from my own experience?

And I am no scientist so...

BTW, are you?

there is no problem, the envirowackos are just trying to make one up to push their ideology.

relax, bake some cookies and enjoy life.

[Chuckit]

NYCFarmboy,

You have done nothing to establish yourself as an authority on the matter. Thus your say-so counts for jack, and your insults just make you sound insecure. Learn2argue.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

So let's look at the backgrounds of the scientists who support the theory of man-made global warming.

Give me some names.

Here you go, better get to work!

Reviewers of the IPCC WGI Third Assessment Report

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

NYCFarmboy,

You have done nothing to establish yourself as an authority on the matter. Thus your say-so counts for jack, and your insults just make you sound insecure. Learn2argue.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by itai195

Here you go, better get to work!

Reviewers of the IPCC WGI Third Assessment Report

Spliffdaddy,

Just to make it easier for you, here are the names of the Americans who reviewed this document. Start checking their backgrounds and lets us know if you find any that are qualified. Thanks!


United States of America

M. Abbott Oregon State University
W. Abdalati NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
D. Adamec NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
R. B. Alley Pennsylvania State University
R. Andres University of Alaska at Fairbanks
J. Angel Illinois State Water Survey
P. Arkin Columbia University
R. Arritt Iowa State University
E. Atlas National Center for Atmospheric Research
D. Bader Department of Energy
T. Baerwald National Science Foundation
R. Bales University of Arizona
R. Barber Duke University
T. Barnett Scripps Institute of Oceanography
P. Bartlein University of Oregon
J. J. Bates NOAA Environmental Technology Laboratory
T. Bates NOAA Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory
M. Bender Princeton University
C. Bentley University of Wisconsin at Madison
K. Bergman NASA Global Modeling and Analysis Program
C. Berkowitz Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
M. Berliner Ohio State University
J. Berry Carnegie Institution of Washington
R. Bindschadler NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
D. Blake University of California at Irvine
T. Bond University of Washington
A. Broccoli Princeton University
W. Broecker Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University
L. Bruhwiler NOAA Climate Monitoring and Diagnostics Laboratory
K. Bryan Princeton University
K. Caldeira Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
M. A. Cane Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University
A. Carleton Pennsylvania State University
R. Cess State University of New York
W. Chameides Georgia Institute of Technology
T. Charlock NASA Langley Research Center
M. Chin NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
K. Cook Cornell University
W. Cooke Princeton University
C. Covey Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
T. Crowley Texas A&M University
D. Cunnold Georgia Institute of Technology
J. A. Curry University of Colorado
R. Dahlman Department of Energy
A. Dai National Center for Atmospheric Research
B. DeAngelo Environmental Protection Agency
P. DeCola NASA
P. DeMott Colorado State University
A. S. Denning Colorado State University
W. Dewar Florida State University
R. E. Dickerson University of Maryland
R. Dickinson Georgia Institute of Technology
L. Dilling NOAA Office of Global Programs
E. Dlugokencky NOAA Climate Monitoring & Diagnostics Laboratory
S. Doney National Center for Atmospheric Research
S. Drobot University of Nebraska
H. Ducklow Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences
W. Easterling Pennsylvania State University
J. Elkins NOAA Climate Monitoring & Diagnostics Laboratory
E. Elliott National Science Foundation
W. Elliott NOAA Air Resources Laboratory
H. Ellsaesser Atmospheric Consultant
S. Esbensen Oregon State University
C. Fairall NOAA Environmental Technology Laboratory
Y. Fan Center for Ocean-Land-Atmosphere Studies
P. Farrar Naval Oceanographic Office
R. Feely NOAA Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory
F. Fehsenfeld NOAA Environmental Research Laboratories
G. Feingold NOAA Environmental Technology Laboratory
R. Fleagle University of Washington
R. Forte Environmental Protection Agency
M. Fox-Rabinovitz University of Maryland
J. Francis Rutgers University
M. Free NOAA Air Resources Laboratory
R. Friedl Jet Propulsion laboratory
I. Fung University of California
D. Gaffen NOAA Air Resources Laboratory
W. Gates Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
C. Gautier University of California at Santa Barbara
P. Geckler Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
L. Gerhard University of Kansas
S. Ghan Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
M. Ghil University of California at Los Angeles
P. Gleckler Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
V. Gornitz NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
V. Grewe NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
W. Gutowski Iowa State University
P. Guttorp University of Washington
R. Hallgren American Meteorological Society
D. Hardy University of Massachusetts
E. Harrison NOAA Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory
G. Hegerl Texas A&M University
B. Hicks NOAA Air Resources Laboratory
W. Higgins NOAA Climate Protection Center
D. Houghton University of Wisconsin at Madison
R. Houghton Woods Hole Research Center
Z. Hu Center for Ocean-Land-Atmosphere Studies
B. Huang Center for Ocean-Land-Atmosphere Studies
J. Hudson Desert Research Institute
M. Hughes University of Arizona
C. Hulbe NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
D. Jacob Harvard University
S. Jacobs Columbia University
M. Jacobson Stanford University
A. Jain University of Illinois
D. James National Science Foundation
G. Johnson NOAA Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory
R. Johnson Colorado State University
T. Joyce Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
R. Katz National Center for Atmospheric Research
R. Keeling Scripps Institute of Oceanography
J. Kiehl National Center for Atmospheric Research
J. Kim Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
J. Kinter Center for Ocean-Land-Atmosphere Studies
B. Kirtman Center for Ocean-Land-Atmosphere Studies
T. Knutson NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory
D. Koch National Center for Atmospheric Research
S. Kreidenweis Colorado State University
V. Krishnamurthy Center for Ocean-Land-Atmosphere Studies
D. Kruger Environmental Protection Agency
J. Kutzbach University of Wisconsin at Madison
C. Landsea NOAA Atlantic Oceanographic & Meteorological Laboratory
N. Laulainen Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
J. Lean Naval Research Laboratory
M. Ledbetter National Science Foundation
T. Ledley TERC
A. Leetmaa NOAA National Weather Service
C. Leith Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
S. Levitus NOAA National Oceanographic Data Center
J. Levy NOAA Office of Global Programs
L. Leung Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
R. Lindzen Massachusetts Institute of Technology
C. Lingle University of Alaska at Fairbanks
J. Logan Harvard University
A. Lupo University of Missouri
M. MacCracken Office of the US Global Change Research Program
G. Magnusdottir University of California
J. Mahlman Princeton University
T. Malone Connecticut Academy of Science and Engineering
M. E. Mann University of Virginia
P. Matrai Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences
D. Mauzerall Princeton University
M. McFarland Dupont Fluoroproducts
A. McGuire University of Alaska at Fairbanks
S. Meacham National Science Foundation
M. Meier Institute of Arctic & Alpine Research
P. Michaels University of Virginia
N. Miller Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
M. Mishchenko NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
V. Misra Center for Ocean-Land-Atmosphere Studies
R. Molinari NOAA Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory
S. Montzka NOAA Climate Monitoring & Diagnostics Laboratory
K. Mooney NOAA Office of Global Programs
A. Mosier Department of Agriculture
D. Neelin University of California at Los Angeles
R. Neilson Oregon State University
J. Norris Princeton University
G. North Texas A & M University
T. Novakov Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
W. O’Hirok Institute for Computational Earth System Science
M. Palecki Illinois State Water Survey
S. Pandis Carnegie Mellon University
C. L. Parkinson NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
J. Penner University of Michigan
K. Pickering University of Maryland
R. Pielke Colorado State University
S. Piper Scripps Institution of Oceanography
H. Pollack University of Michigan
G. Potter Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
M. Prather University of California at Irvine
R. Prinn Massachusetts Institute of Technology
N. Psuty State University of New Jersey
V. Ramanathan Scripps Institute of Oceanography
V. Ramaswamy Princeton University
R. Randall The Rainforest Regeneration Institution
J. Randerson California Institute of Technology
C. Raymond University of Washington
P. Rhines University of Washington
C. Rinsland NASA Langley Research Center
D. Ritson Stanford University
A. Robock Rutgers University
B. Rock University of New Hampshire
J. Rodriguez University of Miami
R. Ross NOAA Air Resources Laboratory
D. Rotman Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
C. Sabine University of Washington
D. Sahagian University of New Hampshire
E. Saltzman National Science Foundation
S. Sander NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory
E. Sarachik University of Washington
V. Saxena North Carolina State University
S. Schauffler National Center for Atmospheric Research
E. Scheehle Environmental Protection Agency
W. Schlesinger Duke University
C. Schlosser Center for Ocean-Land-Atmosphere Studies
R. W. Schmitt Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
E. Schneider Center for Ocean-Land-Atmosphere Studies
S. Schneider Stanford University
S. Schwartz Brookhaven National Laboratory
M. Schwartzkopf Princeton University
J. Seinfeld California Institute of Technology
A. Semtner Naval Postgraduate School
J. Severinghaus University of California
D. Shindell NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
H. Sievering University of Colorado
J. Simpson University of California
H. Singh NASA Ames Research Center
D. Skole Michigan State University
S. Smith Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
B. J. Soden Princeton University
R. Somerville University of California
M. Spector Lehigh University
T. Spence National Science Foundation
P. Stephens National Science Foundation
P. Stone Massachusetts Institute of Technology
R. Stouffer Princeton University
D. Straus Center for Ocean-Land-Atmosphere Studies
C. Sucher NOAA Office of Global Programs
Y. Sud NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
B. Sun University of Massachusetts
P. Tans NOAA Climate Monitoring & Diagnostics Laboratory
R. Thomas NASA Wallops Flight Facility
D. Thompson University of Washington
J. Titus Environmental Protection Agency
K. E. Trenberth National Center for Atmospheric Research
S. Trumbore University of California at Irvine
G. Tselioudis NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
C. van der Veen Ohio State University
M. Visbeck Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University
M. Vuille University of Massachusetts
M. Wahlen University of California
J. Wallace University of Washington
J. Walsh University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
J. Wang NOAA Air Resources Laboratory
W. Wang State University of New York at Albany
Y. Wang Georgia Institute of Technology
M. Ward Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University
S. Warren University of Washington
W. Washington National Center for Atmospheric Research
B. Weare University of California at Davis
T. Webb Brown University
M. Wehner Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
R. Weller Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
P. Wennberg California Institute of Technology
H. Weosky Federal Aviation Administration
D. Williamson National Center for Atmospheric Research
D. Winstanley Illinois State Water Survey
S. Wofsy Harvard University
J. Wong NOAA Air Resources Laboratory
C. Woodhouse NOAA National Geophysical Data Center
Z. Wu Centre for Ocean-Land-Atmosphere Studies
X. Xiao University of New Hampshire
Z. Yang University of Arizona
S. Yvon-Lewis NOAA Atlantic Oceanographic & Meteorological Laboratory
C. Zender University of California at Irvine

[Spliffdaddy]

So far, it seems that better than 80% of them get their funding by virtue of the fact that they're on a "climate change" committee - so if they don't find any 'climate change', they'll be looking for a real job. The other 20% are on the UN's payroll.

Oddly enough, there are only 'no-name' universities represented in your list.

Wu Centre for Ocean-Land-Atmosphere Studies
Xiao University of New Hampshire
Yang University of Arizona

lol.

Now there's some Ivy League establishments!

[Chuckit]

Harvard and Princeton aren't fancy enough for you, Spliffdaddy?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Right above the ones you listed:

S. Wofsy Harvard University
B. Weare University of California at Davis
S. Warren University of Washington
M. Vuille University of Massachusetts
M. Wahlen University of California
G. Tselioudis NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
P. Stone Massachusetts Institute of Technology
R. Stouffer Princeton University
S. Schneider Stanford University

etc.

I hear Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, MIT etc. are pretty much the bottom of the barrel when it comes to higher education.



greg

[OldManMac]

You know, you're right, Spliff.

No one's ever heard of Harvard, or the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, or the Goddard Space Flight Center, or Columbia, or the National Center for Atmospheric Research, or the National Science Foundation, or the Department of Energy, etc., etc.

Hardly "no-name" institutions. Of course, you would pick a couple to try to make your point, and hope no one notices your tactic. And of course, you wouldn't want to admit that there just might be some bright minds who know vastly more about this subject than you, even at "no-name" institutions. I mean, how dare we question your qualifications on this subject?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

So I just did a random scan:

W. Schlesinger Duke University – James B. Duke Professor of Biogeochemistry and Dean of the Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences

S. Wofsy Harvard University – Abbot Lawrence Rotch Professor of Atmospheric and Environmental Science

P. Stone Massachusetts Institute of Technology – Professor of Climate Dynamics

R. Stouffer Princeton University – senior research meteorologist in the Climate Dynamics and Prediction Group of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL)

S. Schneider Stanford University – honored in 1992 with a MacArthur Fellowship for his ability to integrate and interpret the results of global climate research through public lectures, seminars, classroom teaching, environmental assessment committees, media appearances, Congressional testimony, and research collaboration with colleagues. He has served as a consultant to Federal Agencies and/or White House staff in the Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton and Bush Jr. administrations. He also received, in 1991, the American Association for the Advancement of Science/ Westinghouse Award for Public Understanding of Science and Technology, for furthering public understanding of environmental science and its implications for public policy. In 1998 he became a foreign member of the Academia Europaea, Earth and Cosmic Sciences Section. He was elected Chair of the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s Section on Atmospheric and Hydrospheric Sciences (1999-2001). Schneider was elected to membership in the U.S. National Academy of Sciences in April 2002.
(Jesus H. Christ!)

M. Jacobson Stanford University – recently received the 2005 American Meteorological Society Henry G. Houghton Award for "significant contributions to modeling aerosol chemistry and to understanding the role of soot and other carbon particles on climate


...yeah. Lookin' a little foolish, aren't ya buddy?? Maybe...maybe you should go smoke another joint or something. It might straighten your argument right out.



greg

[Spliffdaddy]

I'd be a sucker if I thought global warming wasn't BS.

Find something else to worry about, folks.

Ain't like you're gonna live long enough to find out which one of us was right.

So just go hug a tree and promote Socialism or whatever you global warming proponents typically do with your time.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

To quote myself in the NASA/global climate change thread below:

In another thread here on the good of the pol lounge, you talk about strongly arguing your opinion and prefering to win "outright" rather than reach a middle ground. Well, that's bullshit. You've lost here. You lost a long time ago, when every single one of your points gets refuted. You just move on to the next excuse that we'll have to refute and then, when it's painfully clear you just don't know what you're talking about, just like every other time, you'll resort to trying to inflame opinions by writing outrageous comments like how much you pollute, or how everything global scientists say is contradictory. It shows you wouldn't change your own opinion, no matter how stupid or wrong it is, no matter what's proved to you. How pathetic.

I can't wait for your reply, which until I posted this sentence would probably talk about how you're still going to pollute more because you simply don't care. OOOOooooo. Scary.

...yeap.

greg

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

I'd be a sucker if I thought global warming wasn't BS.

Find something else to worry about, folks.

Ain't like you're gonna live long enough to find out which one of us was right.

So just go hug a tree and promote Socialism or whatever you global warming proponents typically do with your time.

[hyteckit]

Haha... spliff got owned.

What was it about the left resorting to name calling again Spliff when they have no argument? We true hugger, socialist, global warming proponents? Haha...

[itai195]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Oddly enough, there are only 'no-name' universities represented in your list.

Wu Centre for Ocean-Land-Atmosphere Studies
Xiao University of New Hampshire
Yang University of Arizona

Others have responded to this sufficiently, but looking at the list you chose to call out, since when is the University of Arizona a no-name university? It has one of the top natural sciences departments in the country as I recall (and, more commonly known, a really good basketball program).

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

I'd be a sucker if I thought global warming wasn't BS.

Find something else to worry about, folks.

Ain't like you're gonna live long enough to find out which one of us was right.

So just go hug a tree and promote Socialism or whatever you global warming proponents typically do with your time.

Just about the reply that was expected. Can't come up with anything substantive. BTW, I don't promote "Socialism," but I do believe in and promote fairness.

[RAILhead]

It's the end of the world as we know it.
It's the end of the world as we know it.
It's the end of the world as we know it.
And I feel fine.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally Posted by KarlG

Just about the reply that was expected. Can't come up with anything substantive. BTW, I don't promote "Socialism," but I do believe in and promote fairness.

That is just it, the global warming fearmongers really don't give a rats @ss about "climate change" other than that they can use it as a tool for their own political agenda.

[Spliffdaddy]

If I ever get owned, it won't be in a lame-ass global warming thread.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

You know, it's alright. You can admit you got booted down. We won't laugh much.



greg

Now Playing: Al Green – Call Me (Come Back Home)

[itai195]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

That is just it, the global warming fearmongers really don't give a rats @ss about "climate change" other than that they can use it as a tool for their own political agenda.

One could quite easily take what you wrote and replace 'global warming' with 'terrorism' and 'climate change' with 'al-Qaeda' and it would still make sense. Are you claiming that Republicans keep their values and political agendas separate? Do you have anything more to add to this discussion than name-calling and platitudes?

[Spliffdaddy]

I truly feel sorry for all the folks that bought into the global warming myth.

Please, find another cause to celebrate. You won't live long enough to even know if you're right or wrong.

Save the whales or something.

I mean, how dumb are you gonna feel in the next decade when the average temperature drops 2/3rds of a degree?

[Chuckit]

How dumb are you going to feel when every claim you've made in this thread turns out to be wrong and yet you keep making unfounded assertions that go against the opinion of many reputable experts?

Anyway, why the hell do you feel sorry for people who believe in global warming? Does it cause them some kind of harm?

[tie]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Now there's some Ivy League establishments!

Stupid liberal tree-hugger me, thinking Harvard was part of the Ivy League. Spliffdaddy knows the truth.

Did you notice J. Seinfeld from Caltech?

[OldManMac]

Of course, it just couldn't be true that this administration has anything to do with altering data and trying to silence it's critics, could it?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...e1415985.shtml

[Moderator]

why do you guys argue with this ape. just let him be.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Please, find another cause to celebrate. You won't live long enough to even know if you're right or wrong.

I'm celebrating keeping Intelligent Design out of the science classroom. Unfortunately, I had two strokes and an aneurism before I picked up a bat and beat them.

I swear, their stupidity is like The Ring. You watch them and 7 days later you're a moron.

[Monique]

For those who are against the EPA, cleaner air, cleaner water... why don't you want to protect the environment against the pollutants?

Why do you want all the forest to disapear, to make sure we cannot breathe the air, or have clean water, or protect the animals?

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally Posted by Monique

For those who are against the EPA, cleaner air, cleaner water... why don't you want to protect the environment against the pollutants?

Why do you want all the forest to disapear, to make sure we cannot breathe the air, or have clean water, or protect the animals?

because none of those "goals" are really what the envirowackoist zealots are looking for.

It is just a control/imposed "fairness/socialism/shared misery" ideal that they can't win at the ballot box so they are using the made up "problems" of the environment as tools towards thier political objectives.

[hyteckit]

Hmm... let me see who to believe.

Top NASA scientist who spend many years studying global warming who is risking his career to show the global warming is a real threat and something we have control over.

Or ExxonMobil paid lawyer who knows nothing about climate changes.

Man, though choice.

Damn those tree huggers!

[Spliffdaddy]

Hell, I don't believe either one.

They both have an agenda. And it isn't to help me.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Hell, I don't believe either one.

They both have an agenda. And it isn't to help me.

Right spliff. I don't believe top scientist all over the world who are studying global warming. I know better. I don't believe in gravity either. Those scientist have an agenda.

You are a craze fanatic Spliff. Just admit it.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Hell, I don't believe either one.

They both have an agenda. And it isn't to help me.

What's the NASA scientist's agenda?

[Spliffdaddy]

funding.

[hyteckit]

What good is funding to the top scientist if he losses his job? He benefits nothing from the funding, if he keeps insisting global warming is a threat. He'll lose funding. So, you're wrong.

It really doesn't matter. Spliff won't believe in global warming even if hurricaines and typhoon kills millions on the West Coast. It's craze fanatics like him that won't listen until it's too late. Actually, he won't listen even when it's too late.

[Moderator]

Originally Posted by hyteckit

It really doesn't matter. Spliff won't believe in global warming even if hurricaines and typhoon kills millions on the West Coast. It's craze fanatics like him that won't listen until it's too late. Actually, he won't listen even when it's too late.

so stop trying to debate him..he's baiting you..I doubt he even believes what he's writing