Was that directed at my quote?

If so, how is plankton going to change the salinity of the ocean? Also, large swaths of the oceans have no ecosystem, not a bit, so replacing these areas with plankton farms would boost the sea life as most sea creatures eat plankton. Or are you worried about there being too much fish?

2/6/2007 10:08:10 AM

I think we should build giant robots with lasers to zap the gas out of the atmosphere.

2/6/2007 10:18:23 AM

Two words "nuclear winter"

2/6/2007 10:30:29 AM

DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM. . .oh. . .and gloom.

2/6/2007 12:07:05 PM

Quote :

"I have a question for you that believe this is a farce that has been artificially exaggerated: why do you think it has been exaggerated? what is the reasoning you believe is behind the pushing of this so-called farce?"

2/6/2007 3:27:57 PM

It's been exaggerated by alarmists who have good intentions but bad methods of spreading their message.

Kinda like "experts" on bird flu.

They all overstate the risks and dangers.

Thats not to say that the Earth is not heating up. Or that carbon dioxide isn't a primary factor in the change. But lets get some fucking perspective here. The water levels are not rising up and swallowing 3rd world countries. The Earth is not much hotter than it has been in the last 10,000 years. Stop with the doomsday scenarios.

[Edited on February 6, 2007 at 5:09 PM. Reason : 2]

2/6/2007 5:01:43 PM

Quote :

"The water levels are not rising up and swallowing 3rd world countries."

India? All it would take is a meter or so.

Quote :

"The Earth is not much hotter than it has been in the last 10,000 years."

"much" being a relative term.

2/7/2007 11:15:26 AM

Quote :

"The water levels are not rising up and swallowing 3rd world countries"

Quote :

"India? All it would take is a meter or so."

Has it happened? Has the sea level risen and swallowed up India? Because you sure make it sound that way

2/7/2007 4:52:22 PM

Maybe not India, but hasn't the rising ocean levels submerged several pacific ocean islands with populations?

2/7/2007 4:55:04 PM

i dunno...probably...considering its been changing forever even before people drove evil automobiles

2/7/2007 4:58:57 PM

While the experts are 90% global warming is caused by human activity, you're still 100% sure it's not.

GG

2/7/2007 5:01:06 PM

^ He's not 100% sure it's not, he's "OMG WE DON'T KNOW"

Which is pointless to argue against.

2/7/2007 5:30:40 PM

well we dont know

no matter how convinced you are, we DONT know

thats the reality

2/7/2007 5:32:16 PM

And we certainly shouldn't make any policy regarding any future event unless we're absolutely 100% sure what will happen.

90% doesn't cut it.

2/7/2007 5:35:08 PM

Quote :

"The phrase "very likely" translates to a more than 90 percent certainty that global warming is caused by man. What that means in layman's language is "we have this nailed," said top U.S. climate scientist Jerry Mahlman, who originated the percentage system. It marked an escalation from the panel's last report in 2001, which said warming was "likely" caused by human activity. There had been speculation that the participants might try to up the ante to "virtually certain" man causes global warming, which translates to 99 percent chance."

For all the people who are saying "very likely" doesn't cut it.

Quote :

"The United Nations...notoriously anti-American organization."

Limiting environmental impact hurts China, India, and the rest of the world a lot worse than the US. All things considered, we are a fairly clean country by comparison.

[Edited on February 7, 2007 at 5:37 PM. Reason : l]

2/7/2007 5:36:18 PM

Quote :

"And we certainly shouldn't make any policy regarding any future event unless we're absolutely 100% sure what will happen. 90% doesn't cut it."

good thing we made all those critical global cooling policies when that was the consensus a mere few decades ago

Quote :

"What that means in layman's language is "we have this nailed," "

wow...heres another problem...trying to condense a hypothesis based on limited data into a layman's "definitely"...and you wonder why so many ignorant people are completey convinced that global warming being completely manmade is an absolute fact

[Edited on February 7, 2007 at 5:38 PM. Reason : .]

2/7/2007 5:36:24 PM

1. What consensus? It was a couple scientists writing a couple articles.

2. Omg we've been wrong before. From now on we'll make no policy decisions until we're 100% sure what will happen in the future.

2/7/2007 5:39:11 PM

Quote :

"1. What consensus? It was a couple scientists writing a couple articles."

no it was the consensus

Quote :

"2. Omg we've been wrong before. From now on we'll make no policy decisions until we're 100% sure what will happen in the future. "

nice strawman

Quote :

""It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976."

Quote :

"Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. "

Quote :

"Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen. I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law. As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted. Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention."

[Edited on February 7, 2007 at 5:51 PM. Reason : .]

2/7/2007 5:44:40 PM

Quote :

"no it was the consensus"

Bullshit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#Concern_in_the_Middle_of_the_Twentieth_Century

The science community did not have a consensus because they lacked evidence in the 70s.


hahaha, you suck at this. Way to get your source from canadafreepress.com:

Quote :

"Dr. Timothy Ball is Chairman and Chair of the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP). [1] Previously, Ball has been identified as a Canadian climate change sceptic who is a "scientific advisor" to the oil industry-backed organization, Friends of Science. [2] Ball is a member of the Board of Research Advisors of the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, a Canadian think tank. [3] Ball is also a writer for Tech Central Station. [4] "

The guy writes for tech central station. Enough said Treetard.

hey, if I bold the words of a hack, does that make him more credible?

[Edited on February 7, 2007 at 5:54 PM. Reason : .]

2/7/2007 5:50:49 PM

they still lack the evidence, dumbshit

WAY TO GET YOUR "EVIDENCE" FROM FUCKING WIKIPEDIA

wtf is "tech central station"

and how does that change the fact that he has PhDs?

[Edited on February 7, 2007 at 5:57 PM. Reason : .]

2/7/2007 5:54:14 PM

What evidence is lacking?

The crystal ball?

You don't even know. You just say "omg we don't have enough evidence" as if you knew better than the scientific community.

Quote :

"wtf is "tech central station" and how does that change the fact that he has PhDs?"

1. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tech_Central_Station

2. You have a degree. This should teach us all a lesson about how important a degree is in and of itself.

[Edited on February 7, 2007 at 5:59 PM. Reason : .]

2/7/2007 5:55:41 PM

Quote :

"as if you knew better than the scientific community"

BECAUSE YOU KNOW BETTER YOURSELF!

please respond to this:

Quote :

"Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen. I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method "

please respond that

OH NO! CORPORATIONS FUNDED THEM! THAT MEANS THEY ARE JUST LYING LIARS!!

[Edited on February 7, 2007 at 6:01 PM. Reason : .]

2/7/2007 5:58:47 PM

I know better?


Or the world's climatologists (save for a dozen or so) know better?




[Edited on February 7, 2007 at 6:05 PM. Reason : .]

2/7/2007 6:00:12 PM

what makes you the authority on the "dozen or so" that "don't know better"?

btw please respond to the last quote which i asked you twice in the same post to respond to



[Edited on February 7, 2007 at 6:05 PM. Reason : .]

2/7/2007 6:01:37 PM

The guy's a consultant for the energy industry.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_Lindzen


You're the Salisburyboy of climate change

"My random dude trumps the expert consensus"

"You're all sheep of the zionistsclimatologists"

[Edited on February 7, 2007 at 6:09 PM. Reason : .]

2/7/2007 6:06:04 PM

sourcewatch referencing harpers magazine

wow what credible sources

almost as credible as some of salisburyboy's sources...ironic that you call me saliburyboy and keep posting your bullshit sources

does sourcewatch hold your dick when you pee? i mean i didnt expect you to respond yourself, just to do a search on your website instead of thinking about it...but hey, you dont think theres anything wrong with the Sierra Club paying a scientist because they apparently dont have any agendas of their own

2/7/2007 6:10:18 PM

The Sierra Club pays for 98% of all climatologists salaries?

Someone has to check their power before it's too late.



[Edited on February 7, 2007 at 6:13 PM. Reason : .]

2/7/2007 6:11:53 PM

Quote :

"SourceWatch, part of our wiki-based investigative journalism collaborative to which anyone, including you, can contribute. "

wow i can edit sourcewatch? it must be a credible source! gg Boone!

^that article was on page 2...wow you are dumber than tyler hansbrough

[Edited on February 7, 2007 at 6:13 PM. Reason : .]

2/7/2007 6:12:34 PM

lol, so how exactly did you come across that canadafreepress article? hmmm?

2/7/2007 6:13:19 PM

Quote :

"that article was on page 2...wow you are dumber than tyler hansbrough"

SOURCEWATCH IS SO CREDIBLE, ANYBODY CAN EDIT IT!!1111

you care to attempt to discredit any of my comments with a single LEGITIMATE source? i know its more convenient to use salisburyboy-like glorified-blog type resources (still lol'ing at the irony) but hey if thats the best you can do

i hope you dont shy away from responding just because you are heartbroken from just finding out that anyone can edit sourcewatch pages

[Edited on February 7, 2007 at 6:17 PM. Reason : .]

2/7/2007 6:13:47 PM

http://www.ipcc.ch/

http://www.nationalacademies.org/environment/

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/policy/index.html



Here's one you can use against me:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2006/161106suvjupiter.htm

Quote :

"SUV's On Jupiter? Are humans responsible for climate change on the outer reaches of the solar system, or is it the sun? Paul Joseph Watson Prison Planet Thursday, November 16, 2006 Kofi Annan today slammed global warming skeptics as being "out of step" and "out of time," but how will altering human activity halt climate change when the evidence clearly indicates that the sun itself and not SUV's is heating up the entire solar system? "The U.N. chief lamented "a frightening lack of leadership" in fashioning next steps to reduce global emissions. "Let us start being more politically courageous," he urged the hundreds of delegates from some 180 member nations of the 1992 U.N. climate treaty," reports Forbes. But how do we square the fact that almost every planet in our solar system is simultaneously undergoing temperature change and volatile weather patterns. Does this not suggest that global warming is a natural cycle as a result of the evolving nature of the sun? Can Al Gore fill me in on this one?"

[Edited on February 7, 2007 at 6:18 PM. Reason : .]

2/7/2007 6:17:20 PM

Quote :

"http://www.nationalacademies.org/environment/"

Quote :

"Four organizations comprise the Academies: the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council."

Quote :

"Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences "

so you discredit Lindzen, then you post a link to the NA site? wtf!

did you do that on purpose? did you even realize what you did?

2/7/2007 6:21:40 PM

So this guy's a credible source because he's in the NAS, but the official view of the NAS is bunk?

2/7/2007 6:23:27 PM

did you do that on purpose? did you even realize what you did?

2/7/2007 6:24:08 PM

Why does Lindzen's opinions mean anything?

He has PhDs?

He's in the NAS?

The consensus amongst PhDs and the NAS is that human emissions are responsible for a large portion of climate change.


I could dig up a handful of PhD-holding engineers who claim that the jets couldn't have destroyed the WTC, but is it necessary?

[Edited on February 7, 2007 at 6:29 PM. Reason : .]

2/7/2007 6:26:14 PM

Quote :

"Why does Lindzen's opinions mean anything? He has PhDs? He's in the NAS?"

his PhD and NAS membership certainly make his opinion mean more than your opinions...and mine

Quote :

"In one of the earliest studies to research the environmental impacts of combustion engines, Exxon Mobil funded a group of 11 climatologists, who concluded that exhaust emissions, which included carbon dioxide, had an adverse impact on air pollution levels. The scientists also recommended research and development projects to create a cleaner and more efficient combustion engine."

I would've paid attention to the conclusions that manmade co2 is bad for the air...but Exxon funded it! So who gives a shit what it said, THEY WERE PAID BY AN OIL COMPANY!!111

2/7/2007 6:36:43 PM

Quote :

"his PhD and NAS membership certainly make his opinion mean more than your opinions...and mine"

Do his PhDs and NAS membership make him more credible than the overwhelming majority of PhDs in his field and the NAS itself?

Quote :

"I would've paid attention to the conclusions that manmade co2 is bad for the air...but Exxon funded it! So who gives a shit what it said, THEY WERE PAID BY AN OIL COMPANY!!111"

That's ignoring my point. Exxon-funded studies aren't automatically void. However, when the only source for anti-climate change studies are funded by interests that do not want climate change to exist, they can be easily dismissed.

2/7/2007 6:40:54 PM

Quote :

"Do his PhDs and NAS membership make him more credible than the overwhelming majority of PhDs in his field and the NAS itself?"

does a majority opinion make that opinion correct?

Quote :

"Exxon-funded studies aren't automatically void"

not when you agree with the results, they arent

although as soon as i mention his name in the first place, you use your glorified blog "sourcewatch" to attempt to completely discredit him, since he has been paid by oil companies for consulting...your entire basis for discrediting him was because he was "a consultant for the energy industry"...yet now Exxon-funded studies aren't automatically void?

and whats your opinion on all the scientists funded by solar or wind power companies? and do you think that solar and wind power companies are non profit or something?

2/7/2007 6:45:41 PM

Quote :

"and whats your opinion on all the scientists funded by solar or wind power companies? and do you think that solar and wind power companies are non profit or something?"

What's your opinion on scientists that aren't paid by interest groups? You know, the ones I cite?

2/7/2007 6:50:07 PM

Anyone who has denied global warming being manmade is only doing that to protect their job or get money. Its 99.9 percent fact that its manmade. If 100% of the current evidence points to it being manmade its manmade until someone finds evidence shoing its not. This is the warmest its been and the most c02 theres been. Funny how your graphs stop at like 100k years ago and don't have today on them.

2/7/2007 7:29:58 PM

There is an ongoing debate about whether it is warmer now than it was 1000 years ago. It was a hell of a lot hotter 125,000 years ago than it is now.

Stop spouting bullshit and saying it's proven fact.

And learn how to read a graph, plz.

[Edited on February 7, 2007 at 8:13 PM. Reason : 2]

2/7/2007 8:08:37 PM

2/7/2007 9:53:40 PM

^it was that way until the majority agreed it was not

2/7/2007 10:29:48 PM

you mean, the majority of scientists thought it was that way (consensus) based on their best guess, until they got a better understanding

and it is a metaphor of how Aristotle was wrong

2/7/2007 10:32:26 PM

No policy-making unless science is 100% sure.

No policy-making based on science, because science cannot be trusted.

...

Should I just go ahead and assume "no proactive policy-making?"

[Edited on February 7, 2007 at 11:22 PM. Reason : .]

2/7/2007 11:11:18 PM

^^why does this matter?

2/7/2007 11:54:43 PM

cause sometimes scientists are very wrong, even the majority of them, even when they think they know, sometimes the consensus couldnt be more wrong

2/8/2007 12:01:02 AM

but how would you know if they are wrong?

you bring up aristotle and that view, because it looks silly now a days. but ill bet that if you sat down and actually read some plato, aristotle and ptolemy you would be hard pressed to prove them wrong.

again, and this is much more important, if there is even a tiny chance that we are responsible for global warming isnt it worth it to try and correct it. what is so evil about cutting down on pollution?

2/8/2007 12:07:11 AM

nothing is evil about cutting down on pollution and i think everyone would agree

but if you approach everything where there is a tiny chance of something...well lets say there is a tiny chance that some world leader has wmds...isnt it worth it to try and correct it?

2/8/2007 12:47:53 AM

^^ You don't what you're talking about. Socrates was convicted by the Athenians of being a Sophist and was put to death--and as a result, Plato fled the city. In addition, you lump Plato, Aristotle, and Ptolemy in one philosophical mélange, yet they were quite different in their positions.

I think you are engaging in sophistry.

[Edited on February 8, 2007 at 12:57 AM. Reason : ^]

2/8/2007 12:56:58 AM