Discussion: Global Warming and Other Environmental Issues

[Yurka]

This makes me happy.

 

[Tron5000]

This makes me happy.

Agreed. This should be a fun little circus.

I heard this mentioned on FOX News and, obviously, Glenn Beck's show, but have yet to see this mentioned on the other major news networks. Interesting...

 

[Obi-Ron]

The Scammers are not different, if not exactly the same type of people in the 50-80's that wanted to spread communism by enticing people with Communistic "Utopia".

Calling environmentalists "commies" is a new low, even for this thread.

 

[Tron5000]

Calling environmentalists "commies" is a new low, even for this thread.

He didn't call "environmentalists" "commies." He compared "scammers" with people who enticed others with visions of a Communist Utopia.

This is an apt comparison. We're being led to believe that by entirely changing the way we live our lives, somehow we will bring the earth back from disaster and into a 'better' place. Same message, different tactics.

Now, you may disagree with what was said, but that is not the issue here.

Misquoting people or misrepresenting what was actually said is a new low.

Even for this thread.

 

[Tron5000]

And just for good measure:

scammer - one who cheats or defrauds through a scam

environmentalist - any person who advocates or works to protect the air, water, animals, plants, and other natural resources from pollution or its effects

 

[SuBe]

Calling environmentalists "commies" is a new low, even for this thread.

I wasn't calling Enviromentalists Communists, I was comparing the People who scam others using the Enviroment to the Communists. It's a fair assumption that if they lost the battle of Political Ideology, they will use the Government to make there point Law. Either way of New Baby Tax, Carbon Tax, Kyoto Treaty, so on and so forth. What ever it takes to demolish the Captialistic Agenda. It seems to me that whatever the tactic, their goals remain the same. Just now they are using Enviromental Guilt as a weopen, as opposed to Wealth Envy.

 

[chaseter]

Tron, I respect your opinion, it is just hard not argue with you because you do not post any relevant data. You just say that you don't believe it is happening.

I just think it is a great idea to heir on the side of caution whether global warming is happening or not. It is funny to me, now that a change is obviously happening, that the government is starting to put regulations on emissions more heavily when it should have been done decades ago. Just as you say people are probably getting payed off to support claims, you know just as well as I do that the government and others are probably being paid off to keep quiet as well.

 

[chaseter]

I agree with you about the Scamming Part. I believe that IF there was a warming trend (which would have ended in 1997, the year that had the Global Tempature on record, and have dropped considerably since), it was due to the Sun. The Scammers are not different, if not exactly the same type of people in the 50-80's that wanted to spread communism by enticing people with Communistic "Utopia". Those people lost the battle of Political Ideology in the early 90's when the Soveit Union failed, now they have a new tactic in enacting the destruction of Capitalism. By making Corporations "Evil" and trying to give Government more power over you. Like a few weeks ago there was a bill introduced to Congress that would have allowed Local and State Governments to Monitor and Set your Thermostats in your home. It is but one of many ways they are getting into your life. How about this Ethanol Crap Bill that was approved a few months ago. That is the Very reason Food Prices are incredibly High. Corn is used in Ethanol, now Corn has more value than for food. Corn is used for Feed for Cattle, now Dairy products nearly doubled since last years prices. So you can "save" the enviroment, but destroy freedom, good one guys.

Yes, the goal of environmentalists is to improve our environment and living quality by turning us 'red'

But yea, this whole ethanol uproar is, excuse my language, retarted. When it takes more energy to put into and to grow corn than what you get out of it...then why the, excuse my language, f-k do it Ethanol is beneficial in equatorial planes and with high yield crops like sugar cane, but corn is not a high yield crop first off and especially not in the temperate zone. So right now, these idiots making ethanol are depleting our water resources, nutrients, energy, and time to produce a fuel source that has a negative net gain...go figure And yes, that dumb venture, started by our lovely government has caused fluctuations in everything.

 

[Tron5000]

Tron, I respect your opinion, it is just hard not argue with you because you do not post any relevant data. You just say that you don't believe it is happening.

I just think it is a great idea to heir on the side of caution whether global warming is happening or not. It is funny to me, now that a change is obviously happening, that the government is starting to put regulations on emissions more heavily when it should have been done decades ago. Just as you say people are probably getting payed off to support claims, you know just as well as I do that the government and others are probably being paid off to keep quiet as well.

Don't post relevant data, huh? Really?

Take 3 minutes. Check this out, if it won't get in the way of your already deeply-held beliefs.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/globalwarming.html

"Now then, looking at Carbon Dioxide, we find that only .117% of atmospheric carbon dioxide is directly attributable to human technology such as automobiles. .117% is a rather small amount. If we were to measure out .117% of a football field, it comes out to 4.212 inches, barely long enough to get off the touchdown line.

"So, if humans ceased all technological activity, we would still see 99.883% of the carbon dioxide remain in the atmosphere, assuming all other factors remain stable (which is, of course, silly.)"

.http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54528

I prefer to use data that's a bit more recent, say, from the past year.

http://globalwarminghoax.wordpress.com/

"Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile — the list goes on and on.No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA’s GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C — a value large enough to wipe out nearly all the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year’s time. For all four sources, it’s the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.

"Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn’t itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it.

"Let’s hope those factors stop fast. Cold is more damaging than heat. The mean temperature of the planet is about 54 degrees. Humans — and most of the crops and animals we depend on — prefer a temperature closer to 70.

"Historically, the warm periods such as the Medieval Climate Optimum were beneficial for civilization. Corresponding cooling events such as the Little Ice Age, though, were uniformly bad news."

I provided sources. Several of them. However, I've seen none from you.

Like I said, I'm not going to keep providing someone with answers when they have to desire to search for them on their own. The truth is out there.

But here's a couple I'd like to end with:

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/swindle.htm

'There is no proof that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from human activity. Ice core records from the past 650,000 years show that temperature increases have preceded—not resulted from—increases in CO2 by hundreds of years, suggesting that the warming of the oceans is an important source of the rise in atmospheric CO2. As the dominant greenhouse gas, water vapour is far, far more important than CO2. Dire predictions of future warming are based almost entirely on computer climate models, yet these models do not accurately understand the role or water vapor—and, in any case, water vapor is not within our control. Plus, computer models cannot account for the observed cooling of much of the past century (1940–75), nor for the observed patterns of warming—what we call the “fingerprints.” For example, the Antarctic is cooling while models predict warming. And where the models call for the middle atmosphere to warm faster than the surface, the observations show the exact opposite.

"The best evidence supporting natural causes of temperature fluctuations are the changes in cloudiness, which correspond strongly with regular variations in solar activity. The current warming is likely part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that’s been traced back almost a million years. It accounts for the Medieval Warm Period around 1100 A.D., when the Vikings settled Greenland and grew crops, and the Little Ice Age, from about 1400 to 1850 A.D., which brought severe winters and cold summers to Europe, with failed harvests, starvation, disease, and general misery. Attempts have been made to claim that the current warming is 'unusual' using spurious analysis of tree rings and other proxy data. Advocates have tried to deny the existence of these historic climate swings and claim that the current warming is 'unusual' by using spurious analysis of tree rings and other proxy data, resulting in the famous 'hockey–stick' temperature graph. The hockey-stick graph has now been thoroughly discredited."


http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/prog1.htm#suspend

"Green groups such as Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund and Earth First are using their influence to persuade people that an environmental disaster of historic proportions is just around the corner. As Barbara Mass of the Pan African Conservation Group succinctly puts it: I think we're going to drown in our own muck.'

"Environmentalist thinking is now widely accepted in the West. However, many scientists argue that what the Greens say about global warming and pollution is wrong. Professor Wilfred Beckerman, a former member of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, was himself an enthusiastic environmentalist until he started examining the facts. He told Against Nature: 'Within a few months of looking at the statistical data, I realised that most of my concerns about the environment were based on false information and scare stories.'

"According to Piers Corbyn, Director of Weather Action, many scientists do not accept the idea that pollution is causing global warming. Environmentalists claim that world temperatures have risen one degree Fahrenheit in the past century, but Corbyn points out that the period they take as their starting point — around 1880 — was colder than average. What's more, the timing of temperature changes does not appear to support the theory of global warming. Most of the rise came before 1940 —before human-caused emissions of 'greenhouse' gases became significant.

"According to the Greens, during the post-war boom global warming should have pushed temperatures up. But the opposite happened. 'As a matter of the fact, the decrease in temperature, which was very noticeable in the 60s and 70s, led many people to fear that we would be going into another ice age,' remembers Fred Singer, former Chief Scientist with the US Weather Program.

"Even in recent times, the temperature has not behaved as it should according to global warming theory. Over the last eight years, temperature in the southern hemisphere has actually been falling. Moreover, says Piers Corbyn, 'When proper satellite measurements are done of world temperatures, they do not show any increase whatsoever over the last 20 years.'

"But Greens refuse to accept they have could have been proved wrong. Now they say global warming can involve temperature going both up and down.

"'Global warming is above all global climatic destabilisation,' says Edward Goldsmith, editor of the Ecologist, 'with extremes of cold and heat when you don't expect it. You can't predict climate any more. You get terrible droughts in certain cases; sometimes you get downpours. In Egypt, I think, they had a rainfall for the first time in history — they suddenly had an incredible downpour. Water pouring down in places where it's never rained before. And then you get droughts in another area. So it's going to be extremely unpredictable.'

"Scientists also point out that nature produces far more greenhouse gases than we do. For example, when the Mount Pinatubo volcano erupted, within just a few hours it had thrown into the atmosphere 30 million tonnes of sulphur dioxide— almost twice as much as all the factories, power plants and cars in the United States do in a whole year. Oceans emit 90 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, every year. Decaying plants throw up another 90 billion tonnes, compared to just six billion tonnes a year from humans.

"What's more, 100 million years ago, there was six times as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as there is now, yet the temperature then was marginally cooler than it is today. Many scientists have concluded that carbon dioxide doesn't even affect climate.

"Although many environmentalists have been forced to accept much of the scientific evidence against global warming, they still argue that it is better to be safe than sorry. So they continue to use global warming as a reason to oppose industrialisation and economic growth."


And one last point...meteorologists can not even accurately predict the weather in a very small area a week in advance. Just how are we supposed to believe someone when they feed us stories of doom-and-gloom a hundred years from now?

I provided sources. Several of them. However, I've seen none from you.

Like I said, I'm not going to keep providing someone with answers when they have to desire to search for them on their own. The truth is out there.

But here's a couple I'd like to end with:

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/swindle.htm

'There is no proof that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from human activity. Ice core records from the past 650,000 years show that temperature increases have preceded—not resulted from—increases in CO2 by hundreds of years, suggesting that the warming of the oceans is an important source of the rise in atmospheric CO2. As the dominant greenhouse gas, water vapour is far, far more important than CO2. Dire predictions of future warming are based almost entirely on computer climate models, yet these models do not accurately understand the role or water vapor—and, in any case, water vapor is not within our control. Plus, computer models cannot account for the observed cooling of much of the past century (1940–75), nor for the observed patterns of warming—what we call the “fingerprints.” For example, the Antarctic is cooling while models predict warming. And where the models call for the middle atmosphere to warm faster than the surface, the observations show the exact opposite.

"The best evidence supporting natural causes of temperature fluctuations are the changes in cloudiness, which correspond strongly with regular variations in solar activity. The current warming is likely part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that’s been traced back almost a million years. It accounts for the Medieval Warm Period around 1100 A.D., when the Vikings settled Greenland and grew crops, and the Little Ice Age, from about 1400 to 1850 A.D., which brought severe winters and cold summers to Europe, with failed harvests, starvation, disease, and general misery. Attempts have been made to claim that the current warming is 'unusual' using spurious analysis of tree rings and other proxy data. Advocates have tried to deny the existence of these historic climate swings and claim that the current warming is 'unusual' by using spurious analysis of tree rings and other proxy data, resulting in the famous 'hockey–stick' temperature graph. The hockey-stick graph has now been thoroughly discredited."


http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/prog1.htm#suspend

"Green groups such as Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund and Earth First are using their influence to persuade people that an environmental disaster of historic proportions is just around the corner. As Barbara Mass of the Pan African Conservation Group succinctly puts it: I think we're going to drown in our own muck.'

"Environmentalist thinking is now widely accepted in the West. However, many scientists argue that what the Greens say about global warming and pollution is wrong. Professor Wilfred Beckerman, a former member of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, was himself an enthusiastic environmentalist until he started examining the facts. He told Against Nature: 'Within a few months of looking at the statistical data, I realised that most of my concerns about the environment were based on false information and scare stories.'

"According to Piers Corbyn, Director of Weather Action, many scientists do not accept the idea that pollution is causing global warming. Environmentalists claim that world temperatures have risen one degree Fahrenheit in the past century, but Corbyn points out that the period they take as their starting point — around 1880 — was colder than average. What's more, the timing of temperature changes does not appear to support the theory of global warming. Most of the rise came before 1940 —before human-caused emissions of 'greenhouse' gases became significant.

"According to the Greens, during the post-war boom global warming should have pushed temperatures up. But the opposite happened. 'As a matter of the fact, the decrease in temperature, which was very noticeable in the 60s and 70s, led many people to fear that we would be going into another ice age,' remembers Fred Singer, former Chief Scientist with the US Weather Program.

"Even in recent times, the temperature has not behaved as it should according to global warming theory. Over the last eight years, temperature in the southern hemisphere has actually been falling. Moreover, says Piers Corbyn, 'When proper satellite measurements are done of world temperatures, they do not show any increase whatsoever over the last 20 years.'

"But Greens refuse to accept they have could have been proved wrong. Now they say global warming can involve temperature going both up and down.

"'Global warming is above all global climatic destabilisation,' says Edward Goldsmith, editor of the Ecologist, 'with extremes of cold and heat when you don't expect it. You can't predict climate any more. You get terrible droughts in certain cases; sometimes you get downpours. In Egypt, I think, they had a rainfall for the first time in history — they suddenly had an incredible downpour. Water pouring down in places where it's never rained before. And then you get droughts in another area. So it's going to be extremely unpredictable.'

"Scientists also point out that nature produces far more greenhouse gases than we do. For example, when the Mount Pinatubo volcano erupted, within just a few hours it had thrown into the atmosphere 30 million tonnes of sulphur dioxide— almost twice as much as all the factories, power plants and cars in the United States do in a whole year. Oceans emit 90 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, every year. Decaying plants throw up another 90 billion tonnes, compared to just six billion tonnes a year from humans.

"What's more, 100 million years ago, there was six times as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as there is now, yet the temperature then was marginally cooler than it is today. Many scientists have concluded that carbon dioxide doesn't even affect climate.

"Although many environmentalists have been forced to accept much of the scientific evidence against global warming, they still argue that it is better to be safe than sorry. So they continue to use global warming as a reason to oppose industrialisation and economic growth."


And one last point...meteorologists can not even accurately predict the weather in a very small area a week in advance. Just how are we supposed to believe someone when they feed us stories of doom-and-gloom a hundred years from now?

...that's up through page 8 of this thread. Need I continue?

 

[SuBe]

Don't post relevant data, huh? Really?











...that's up through page 8 of this thread. Need I continue?

What he meant to say is you don't post relevent data that supports his cause, only yours.

 

[Tron5000]

Actually, I think I shall continue...

http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com/

http://www.nolanchart.com/article2999.html

"Global Warming shills are now anchoring the biggest finance and control bubble since the dotcom boom in the late 1990's. It's a multi-billion dollar industry based on the absence of a discernible product, a new religion where missionaries in grey suits have laid siege on Wall Street and London's Square Mile.

"To question the faith is forbidden, as the financiers tap government and UN funds in their crusade to profit from producing nothing, a monumental achievement even by capitalist standards.

"When asked about the CO2 gravy train', many followers, NGO workers and emerging bio-fuel tycoons will admit to you, 'don't ask where it's going, just jump on.'

"This new economy, proposed by Carbon God Al Gore and Carbon Money Changer George Soros, is to be administrated and run by hundreds of so called 'Private-Public Partnerships', a reinvented form of government now commonly known by its initials, 'PPP'. Here large multinational corporations, NGO's and subservient governments collude to impose their own agenda on regional populations under the cleverly fabricated banner of 'sustainable development'. As power begins to shift over to these PPP's, important decision making then takes place behind closed doors, with the ultimate goal of generating limitless private profits from public taxation programs- in the case, carbon taxes & premiums on all goods, services and labour. PPP's and NGO's now play hardball to get Congress to spend more and more money on global warming and carbon calculation research, and even pass economically damaging legislation to support this false thesis. These companies same organisations who lobby Congress stand to gain immediate millions, and in some cases, billions from the new legislation.

"The leading mechanism is the amazing 'Cap and Trade' scheme, whereby large corporations can slowly monopolise industrial sectors, gradually pushing out smaller businesses and competitors who cannot afford to meet the draconian anti-competitive measures.At present, the controlling organisation has taken the form of the United Nations, under the direction of the world's Central Banks, now working with elites from the G8 nations to form a global bureaucracy known as the 'World Environmental Organisation'."


...more can be found at the link above

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st308/st308.pdf

"In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued its Fourth Assessment Report. The report included predictions of big increases in average world temperatures by 2100, resulting in an increasingly rapid loss of the world’s glaciers and ice caps, a dramatic global sea level rise that would threaten low-lying coastal areas, the spread of tropical diseases, and severe drought and floods.

"These dire predictions are not, however, the result of scientific forecasting; rather, they are the opinions of experts. Expert opinion on climate change has often been wrong.

"Skepticism Among the Scientists. Thus it is not surprising that international surveys of climate scientists from 27 countries in 1996 and 2003 found growing skepticism over the accuracy of climate models. Of more than 1,060 respondents, only 35 percent agreed with the statement, 'Climate models can accurately predict future climates,' whereas 47 percent disagreed.

"Violations of Forecasting Principles. Forty internationally-known experts on forecasting methods and 123 expert reviewers codified evidence from research on forecasting into 140 principles. The empirically-validated principles are available in the Principles of Forecasting handbook and at forecastingprinciples.com. These principles were designed to be applicable to making forecasts about diverse physical, social and economic phenomena, from weather to consumer sales, from the spread of nonnative species to investment strategy, and from decisions in war to egg-hatching rates. They were applied to predicting the 2004 U.S. presidential election outcome and provided the most accurate forecast of the two-party vote split of any published forecast, and did so well ahead of election day (see polyvote.-com).

"The authors of this study used these forecasting principles to audit the IPCC report. They found that:
Out of the 140 forecasting principles, 127 principles are relevant to the procedures used to arrive at the climate projections in the IPCC report.
Of these 127, the methods described in the report violated 60 principles.
An additional 12 forecasting principles appear to be violated, and there is insufficient information in the report to assess the use of 38."

...much more at the link above

...OK, that's through page 10. Feel free to check the final 8 pages if you like.

 

[Tron5000]

I just think it is a great idea to heir on the side of caution whether global warming is happening or not.

And now we're talking about erring "on the side of caution whether global warming is happening or not"? No more discussing whether or not this AGW is actually happening. Now we're just supposed to be careful, just in case? So, if all of this is untrue, we need to implement these costly, economy-crippling measure just to be on the safe side, huh?

I'll buy that...

 

[chaseter]

And now we're talking about erring "on the side of caution whether global warming is happening or not"? No more discussing whether or not this AGW is actually happening. Now we're just supposed to be careful, just in case? So, if all of this is untrue, we need to implement these costly, economy-crippling measure just to be on the safe side, huh?

I'll buy that...

Sorry but that is one of the dumbest things I have ever read

Lets put aside the data and our opinions and set this in a practical setting. Lets look at it from my perspective first: We think global warming is happening so we implement measures to allow us to live greener, reduce emissions, make products that are biodegradable, etc...(hippie stufft and we are correct about it. What then? We are prepared. If we are wrong...well that is alright and we still made the world a little better to live in.

Lets look at it from your perspective: Nothing is done and we continue down the path we are on. Nothing happens, well...we just continue on. But what if it does occur? Then we are royally f-ked Do we just go 'Oops,'

Even if nothing ever happens, it is better to be prepared in case it does Hell, we still get something out of it if we implement greener technology. What is so wrong with improving the planet on which we live?

 

[Carcharodon]

And now we're talking about erring "on the side of caution whether global warming is happening or not"? No more discussing whether or not this AGW is actually happening. Now we're just supposed to be careful, just in case? So, if all of this is untrue, we need to implement these costly, economy-crippling measure just to be on the safe side, huh?

I'll buy that...

See, this is where I take issue: there are ways to implement changes without crippling the economy. The only problem is that we're not going those routes. Ethanol is problematic in so many ways it's ridiculous, and it's only a half-solution (if that).

I honestly believe that, at the center of the resistance for fuel change, lies the oil companies. Only recently have the invested themselves in these new fuel sources, and that was probably only after they found out that oil reserves are likely going to run out sooner than initially thought. I believe that they're going to milk this dry, and will use their massive, massive influence to slow the progress until they have a hold on these new technologies themselves so that they can then exploit those somehow.

Of course it will be costly. But crippling? The transition needs to be handled carefully, but I somehow doubt it will be crippling. If anything, it may eventually lead to economic stimulation.

 

[chaseter]

And Tron, those graphs up there prove the point of Global Climate Change. Guess what happens during that period? Erradic weather patterns and increased severity. And what happens after the Earth globally warms...an ice age.

 

[Carcharodon]

Like I said in the other thread dedicated to the very same topic: it won't actually go to court. There's no legal basis.

 

[Carcharodon]

Don't post relevant data, huh? Really?











...that's up through page 8 of this thread. Need I continue?

You posted the same one twice. Fail.

 

[BAH HUMBBUG!]

So when do we colonize another planet and **** that one up to?

 

[Carcharodon]

So when do we colonize another planet and **** that one up to?

I think the moon's first, but that's okay...it has no atmosphere.

If we colonized Mars, it wouldn't really be a problem...considering its atmosphere is already something like 95% carbon dioxide.

 

[BAH HUMBBUG!]

I think the moon's first, but that's okay...it has no atmosphere.

If we colonized Mars, it wouldn't really be a problem...considering its atmosphere is already something like 95% carbon dioxide.

We could make them unlivable with nuclear waste or something couldn't we?

What about the possibility of Ice still being on Mars. It may have even been proven but I do not remember if it is hard fact or not.

 

[Carcharodon]

We could make them unlivable with nuclear waste or something couldn't we?

What about the possibility of Ice still being on Mars. It may have even been proven but I do not remember if it is hard fact or not.

There is ice on Mars, but I don't think it's all water. I think there's a lot of frozen methane or something there as well.

Mars is cold...really cold. I'm not surprised there's ice of some type there.

 

[Tron5000]

Sorry but that is one of the dumbest things I have ever read

Lets put aside the data and our opinions and set this in a practical setting. Lets look at it from my perspective first: We think global warming is happening so we implement measures to allow us to live greener, reduce emissions, make products that are biodegradable, etc...(hippie stufft and we are correct about it. What then? We are prepared. If we are wrong...well that is alright and we still made the world a little better to live in.

Lets look at it from your perspective: Nothing is done and we continue down the path we are on. Nothing happens, well...we just continue on. But what if it does occur? Then we are royally f-ked Do we just go 'Oops,'

Even if nothing ever happens, it is better to be prepared in case it does Hell, we still get something out of it if we implement greener technology. What is so wrong with improving the planet on which we live?

I'm sick of repeating myself. I never said nothing should be done. I've said the opposite. What I have said is that we don't need to do all of these things these people are telling us. Some things should be done to help this planet, and some should not. Such as buying carbon offsets and the like. Stop misrepresenting what I've said.

I'm not buying this "even if nothing ever happens" junk. That totally negates your arguments. So if these people are selling us a load of crap, we're supposed to buy it "just in case"?

If you want to be the blind man, go follow the shepherd. Me, my eyes are wide open.

 

[Carcharodon]

I'm sick of repeating myself. I never said nothing should be done. I've said the opposite. What I have said is that we don't need to all of these things these people are telling us. Such as buying carbon offsets and the like. Stop misrepresenting what I've said.

I'm not buying this "even if nothing ever happens" junk. That totally negates your arguments. So if these people are selling us a load of crap, we're supposed to buy it "just in case"?

If you want to be the blind man, go follow the shepherd. Me, my eyes are wide open.

Thanks, Jules.

 

[chaseter]

Read what you posted again HUMAN. China is pumping out CO2 and it had its coldest winter in 100 years. Do we want to live in another Ice Age?

Plus, Al Gore didn't start this so why sue him? This has no legal standing and is yet another dumb lawsuit.

 

[moraldeficiency]

There is ice on Mars, but I don't think it's all water. I think there's a lot of frozen methane or something there as well.

Mars is cold...really cold. I'm not surprised there's ice of some type there.

^that is correct sir.^

I always thought venus would be the first colonized once we figure how to properly manipulate algae.