"Global Warming" Hysteria

[billvon 3,073]

Why would he be attacked? I agree with him; I suspect most would. We DO need to get moving on technologies like CO2 sequestration if we are going to have any chance at reducing the impact of global warming. I like one of his quotes:

"Ecology [should] become the engine of economic development and not an artificial obstacle that creates fear."

Several companies have already taken this direction, and are making lots of money by (for example) building solar-PV panels.

[narcimund 0]

I love this little quote showing the journalist's short memory:

Quote

In the 1980s and early 1990s, when concern about global warming was in its infancy

Anyone see Soylent Green? A dumb little sci-fi movie. The primary plot element is that the "Greenhouse Effect" has put the world into permanent heatwave. Everyone's walking around sweating and starving and waiting for a little bit of food made from plankton (with a secret ingredient as well). At the end we discover the ocean plankton is dying too...

The movie was made in 1973.

Notably, the movie was made from a novella (Make Room! Make Room! published in 1966) which did not include the global warming phenomenon.

This might help date the origin of the public consciousness of the idea.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

We can wait and watch for this person to be (although once loved) attacked for ........reviewing science to change his mind??

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2f4cc62e-5b0d-4b59-8705-fc28f14da388

Damn it! Stop arguing with the 'consensus'!

It is settled, it is happening, it is severe, and it is the almost all the fault of humans!

Shit like this really gets in the way of the agenda!

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Damn it!

It's fun to watch you two fight against an imaginary adversary

The sad part is you seem to be losing.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

Quote

Damn it!

It's fun to watch you two fight against an imaginary adversary

The sad part is you seem to be losing.

Why do you keep communicating with me? You said it was impossible? I think you know I'm not an extremist, that I'm fairly reasonable and thoughtful. I think you are too, so let's try to look at it this way...

Some want immediate and far-reaching measures to be taken to limit the human impact on global warming, because of the certain consequences as the warming continues. This relies on the confidence that when the human impact is reduced, that global warming will stop.

What if the human contribution is much less than figured? It won't matter if all the nations (including China) cut their emissions of greenhouse gases per Kioto, the warming would continue. If that is the case, we should realize it, and devote ourselves to adapting, as ugly a prospect as that might be.

Then, those that would "deny" the possibility of human contribution being small would be contributing to the danger, by their confidence that global warming can be reversed by human intervention.

I think it better to stop attacking those that continue to doubt the human involvement in this problem. We really do need to be sure.

I've said many times that I think we should boycott importing oil from unfriendly countries. This would definitely raise the price, and allow the USA to lead in new technology spurred by the new reality of the price of energy. I really do believe that it can be a greater economic good to intentionally wean ourselves from oil before it runs out. The change in the politics of the mideast would make it worthwhile by itself. Use oil as a weapon against them, for a change.

I'm not an enemy of changing our ways from our oil dependent ways. I just think we shouldn't be so sure that we know how to reverse or stop global warming.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Why do you keep communicating with me? You said it was impossible?

To be fair I wasn't "communicating" with you. I was "mocking" you. But regardless...

Quote

What if the human contribution is much less than figured? It won't matter if all the nations (including China) cut their emissions of greenhouse gases per Kioto, the warming would continue. If that is the case, we should realize it, and devote ourselves to adapting, as ugly a prospect as that might be.

This seems to be the core of your argument. Distilling it further, you seem to be saying:

Humans can either (A) reduce production of greenhouse gasses or (B) adjust to climate change but not both.

If you were right that humanity couldn't do both, and there was a significant chance that there was inevitable climate change, then there would be something to discuss. There might be conditions where choosing (A) while forgoing (B) would be the wrong choice.

However, there are all sorts of completely nonsensical assumptions in your premise. Primarily that: You believe that reducing greenhouse gas production somehow guarantees humanity will fare WORSE in the oncoming climate shift.

You (and a lot of others) are tangling yourselves up in knots to imagine a bizarre, complicated, and completely evidence-free situation in order to avoid a pretty clear conclusion: we all live in a glass house and a bunch of us are throwing rocks. Bad move.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[sundevil777 102]

I understand that you consistently enjoy mocking others rather than engaging in discussion about the issues. It is still communicating.

Quote

This seems to be the core of your argument. Distilling it further, you seem to be saying:

Humans can either (A) reduce production of greenhouse gasses or (B) adjust to climate change but not both.

Absolutely wrong. Why do you assume the two are mutually exclusive? Some would argue they are sure that humans aren't to blame, so they would refuse to reduce greenhouse gasses, but that is not me.

Both are the right thing to do. Perhaps our contribution to warming is 10% instead of 90%. That is a big difference when forecasting the likely success of reversing the warming by Kioto style changes.

Those that refuse to accept the possibility that warming can't be reversed by the best efforts of humans are the ones with their head in the sands. OK, they aren't the only ones in the sand, but they are right in there with them.

There, now that was a start at communication. Without the mockery, it is whole lot less fun for you, but more interesting for many others.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[speedy 0]

Quote

I love this little quote showing the journalist's short memory:

Quote

In the 1980s and early 1990s, when concern about global warming was in its infancy

Anyone see Soylent Green? A dumb little sci-fi movie. The primary plot element is that the "Greenhouse Effect" has put the world into permanent heatwave. Everyone's walking around sweating and starving and waiting for a little bit of food made from plankton (with a secret ingredient as well). At the end we discover the ocean plankton is dying too...

The movie was made in 1973.

Notably, the movie was made from a novella (Make Room! Make Room! published in 1966) which did not include the global warming phenomenon.

This might help date the origin of the public consciousness of the idea.

I don't think that film had anything to do with it. It was Margaret Thatcher that started it. She had to have a good reason to push nuclear power and get rid of the coal fired power plants. This way she could reduce grip the miners had on power production in the UK.
Global Warming: How It All Began

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[philh 0]

i dotn agree with your analogy at all. If iron fertilisation can lead to a reduction in temperatures then its like making them less fat. I agree with your concerns and I dont suggest this is something we do, just something we should research more. i dont htink thats asking too much.

[rushmc 23]

I hate 'consensus'

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

I love this little quote showing the journalist's short memory:

Quote

In the 1980s and early 1990s, when concern about global warming was in its infancy

Anyone see Soylent Green? A dumb little sci-fi movie. The primary plot element is that the "Greenhouse Effect" has put the world into permanent heatwave. Everyone's walking around sweating and starving and waiting for a little bit of food made from plankton (with a secret ingredient as well). At the end we discover the ocean plankton is dying too...

The movie was made in 1973.

Notably, the movie was made from a novella (Make Room! Make Room! published in 1966) which did not include the global warming phenomenon.

This might help date the origin of the public consciousness of the idea.

You do know the difference between fiction and non-fiction, right?

[narcimund 0]

Quote

You do know the difference between fiction and non-fiction, right?

Um... no sir I blither blither blither don't blither edumacate me blither blither please ,,, urp

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[Andy9o8 2]

Even the whorehouses are hurting. This is some serious shit, folks.

http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/article.html?in_article_id=39945&in_page_id=2

Quote

Global Warming: now it hits brothels
Tuesday, March 6, 2007

Brothel owners in Bulgaria are blaming global warming for staff shortages.

They claim their best girls are working in ski resorts because a lack of snow has forced tourists to seek other pleasures.

Petra Nestorova, who runs an escort agency in Sofia, said: 'We have hired students, but they are temps and nothing like our elite girls.'

[Airman1270 0]

...However, I really don't see the similarity to the gay rights lobby...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

The tactic is the same. That's all I meant by this.

We are being bombarded on a near-daily basis with news stories about this subject. Not once every few months or so, but several times a week. This tactic has been employed for many years now by the homosexual lobby. These are two entirely different issues being promoted by using the same means. The comparison was not only appropriate, but is obvious to anybody who is not driven by any ulterior motives.

And, by the way, gays DO enjoy not only every right normal people have, but "special rights " as well. If you don't believe this, try celebrating your "pride" by marching naked down a city street (Atlanta, early '90's) or by invading a church, vandalizing the property, assaulting people, and scaring kids (San Francisco, September 1993) without fear of arrest.

Cheers,
Jon

[billvon 3,073]

>We are being bombarded on a near-daily basis with news stories about this subject.

Just as in the 1950's we were bombarded with stories about blacks fighting for civil rights. Fortunately, at that time we paid attention, instead of labeling them "the militant black lobby" and telling them to go sit in the back of the bus. (Well, we did that too, but fortunately it didn't last long.)

>And, by the way, gays DO enjoy not only every right normal people have,
>but "special rights " as well.

Just as blacks did in the 1950's! They were free to marry any other black person, so they had the same rights as whites (who could marry any white person.) They had the right to take a literacy test before voting, which undoubtedly helped them learn to read. They had the right (usually) to get their very own bathroom, where they would not bother white people. Imagine that sort of privilege! And people claim that blacks were discriminated against. No one points out they got their very own bathrooms!

[Airman1270 0]

...>30 years ago we could go months without thinking about faggotry.

Which is like saying "60 years ago we could go months without hearing about uppity negroes wanting to sit in the front of the bus..."
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

The analogy doesn't fly. There is nothing immoral about being a practicing black man.

Cheers,
Jon

[billvon 3,073]

>There is nothing immoral about being a practicing black man.

That's not what people in the 1950's thought. They thought blacks were just inherently inferior, and that a black man sleeping with a white woman was the height of immorality. It took decades to change their minds.

Now people think that gays are twisted, or sick, or immoral. It will take decades to change that thinking as well.

[Airman1270 0]

...

Quote

>Bullshit, they have equality . . .

...They cannot join the Armed Services....
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Yes they can. They just need to shut up and keep private matters private.



...They cannot marry those they love...

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

They CAN get married. There may be no point in doing so if they're not attracted to the opposite sex, but they are free to marry if they really really want to.

They are NOT free to arbitrarily change the definition of a word that has meant a certain thing throughout several thousand years of recorded history, and then call people "bigots" because they hesitate to embrace this idiocy.

Cheers,
Jon

• Quote

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

>We are being bombarded on a near-daily basis with news stories about this subject.

Just as in the 1950's we were bombarded with stories about blacks fighting for civil rights. Fortunately, at that time we paid attention, instead of labeling them "the militant black lobby" and telling them to go sit in the back of the bus. (Well, we did that too, but fortunately it didn't last long.)

>And, by the way, gays DO enjoy not only every right normal people have,
>but "special rights " as well.

Just as blacks did in the 1950's! They were free to marry any other black person, so they had the same rights as whites (who could marry any white person.) They had the right to take a literacy test before voting, which undoubtedly helped them learn to read. They had the right (usually) to get their very own bathroom, where they would not bother white people. Imagine that sort of privilege! And people claim that blacks were discriminated against. No one points out they got their very own bathrooms!

Shitty analogy.

How are gays (as individuals) discriminated against. Are there any protections of our civil rights laws that they are somehow exempted from?

You can't legislate legitimacy or respectability, which is what gay activists seem to crave.

[billvon 3,073]

>How are gays (as individuals) discriminated against.

They can't marry those they love. They can't join the military. Those are the primary legislated discriminations. There are, of course, a great many instances of discrimination against them in employment, housing, schooling etc but that's true for a lot of groups (arabs, blacks etc.)

>Are there any protections of our civil rights laws that they are somehow
>exempted from?

Yes. See above.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

How are gays (as individuals) discriminated against.
Are there any protections of our civil rights laws that they are somehow exempted from?

It's not just "civil rights" laws.
In most (not all) jurisdictions:
there is no prohibition against refusing to rent a residence to a gay couple, or to (for example) a 25 year Protestant old white male for no other reason than because he is gay. Gay people have no right to instestate inheritance of their partners' assets; can be prohibited from visiting their critically ill partners in the hospital; or the ability to make "do not resuscitate" decisions for their partners; or the right to make and enforce funeral arrangements for their partners; or the option to list their partners on their employer-provided health insurance. Oh, and they still get beat up for being fags.

Quote

You can't legislate legitimacy or respectability, which is what gay Negro activists seem to crave.

I remember a time when the above was said quite frequently, even in "polite society".

[billvon 3,073]

>They CAN get married.

They cannot marry those they love. Imagine if you were allowed to marry any norwegian you chose, but no one else. Would that mean you have the same rights as anyone else?

>They are NOT free to arbitrarily change the definition of a word that
>has meant a certain thing throughout several thousand years . . .

We did it with interracial marriage; the world did not end. (Indeed, most would argue it got better!) We will do it with gay marriage and the world will not end either. Indeed, it will make the world a better place, and we will someday look back at today and think "wow, I can't believe there was so much fuss."

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

>They are NOT free to arbitrarily change the definition of a word that
>has meant a certain thing throughout several thousand years . . .

We did it with interracial marriage; the world did not end.

You mean 50 years ago the time honored definition of marriage prohibited interracial marriages?

[billvon 3,073]

>You mean 50 years ago the time honored definition of marriage prohibited
>interracial marriages?

Traditions here in the US and God himself prohibited interracial marriages! From the Virginia Supreme Court:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

>You mean 50 years ago the time honored definition of marriage prohibited
>interracial marriages?

Traditions here in the US and God himself prohibited interracial marriages! From the Virginia Supreme Court:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

And two years later, that ruling was overturned.