O/T: Opinion AKA: LipStick On A Pig

Page 4 of 4  
Fred the Red Shirt wrote: <SNIP>

Fred, if it were that simple or obvious, it would have been demonstrated and verified by the scientific method long ago. It's not that simple. Is there some reason to believe in an anthropogenic contribution to warming? Possibly. But it's not as cut and dried as you like. You want to take a shot at making the case ... be my guest.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It was.

No, it is that simple.

What is not cut an dried are numerous OTHER factors that affect climate.

--
FF


Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
<SNIP>

Let's keep in mind here, BTW, that the central question here is NOT, "Are humans significantly contributing to global warmiing?" That question is only of interest if you worship the earth and think humans are pox upon it. The questions of interest are:
1) Is GW happening at any remarkable or unusual rate?
2) Is GW - to the extent it is and will happen - even a danger to mankind?
3) Whatever causes GW - if it is a threat to humanity - can mankind do anything meaningful to ameliorate either its severity or consequences?
At the moment, the best knowledge we've got *suggests* (does not prove, and may change) these answers:
1) Hard to know because quality historic data is not abundant. There does seem to be some slightly higher than usual GW trends, but how bad they are depends on how long a timeline you use. If you you pick your timeline carefully, you can prove nearly any proposition you like.
2) Unclear. More people die prematurely in overly cold than overly warm climates as a rule. Water rising in the ocean could contribute to lowland flooding which does affect a lot of the population of the planet. However, the *rate* at which this is likely to happen - if it happens at all - has been vastly overstated by those deep scientific sages like Al Gore and the rest of his drone followers.
3) If GW is happening, and it's happening in dangerous bad amounts (whatever is causing it), it is almost certainly NOT the case that mankind has the resources to do all that much about. In this worst case scenario, we'd be far better off to do what humans do best: adapt. The odds of adapting effectively, are far, far better than the arrogant presumption that if we just go green enough, deny ourselves the very things that have made mankind so successful (energy, transportation, wealth, markets ...) we can "save the planet".
Like I keep saying the GW scaremongers like Peace Prize Boy are principally animated by a horrible combination of earth worshiping pantheism and socialist/Marxist political ideology. They are not credible witnesses to the questions or their remediation.
The scientists are clearly much more relevant in this discussion, but they too have agendas. Science itself is fairly dispassionate, but the people who do science are not. They are driven by their desire for funding and, at the moment, the funding is tilting towards the GW boogeman. Meanwhile, we have many reasons to continue to question the doomsayers:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id –19
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
aware.com> wrote:

I disagree.
I offered to explain the causative relationship between changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature change.
I did not offer to engage in a wide ranging discussion of other aspects of the issue, reagardless of where your principle interests lie, though I may be happy to do so once we have dispensed with the fundamentals.

Perhaps you didn't understand.
I offered to explain that causative relationship so long as we restrict the conversion to science, and conduct it in a civil manner.
E.g., if we are to have this discussion, we will not be using language such as scaremongers, Peace Prize Boy, earth worshiping pantheism, socialist/Marxist political ideology, boogeman, doomsayers, arrogant presumption, deep scientific sages, and drone followers because those and similar terms are not condusive to scientific understanding or fivil discussion, indeed they are used to prevent any such discussion from taking place.
--
FF



Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

I'm fascinated to hear your explanation of causality. Because ... if you actually have one that holds up, you will have done something the finest scientists on the planet have yet to do and you will be famous.
As to the surrounding socio-political discussion. You may wish to limit yourself to science for purpose of trying to show causality ... and I will listen honestly. But you need to be honest and acknowledge that this is *not* the conversation taking place in the larger culture. The larger discussion is *all* about the social, political, ideological, and theological and almost entirely absent any real science. Witness for instance, almost any of Gore's pontifications. He takes a small kernel of science, distorts it, extrapolates wildly and then aggrandizes himself by becoming the instrument of our salvation. It's all very High Church.
As I say, we can have the science chat, but it almost doesn't matter - that's not the discussion that actually matters at the moment...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
ndraware.com> wrote:

That is incorrect.

Indeed, that is a major problem.

No.
Was I unclear? Socio/Political/Religious/Ideologial considerations can be separated from the scientific discussion. IMHO, only persons who do not under- stand, or wish to understand, or perhaps more accurately, do not wish OTHERS to understand the science, who insist on redirecting and scientific discussion away from science and into the Socio/Political/Religious/Ideologial arena.  

I think you may want to reconsider that last. Don't facts always matter?
THIS (above) is not the start of that discussion. Barring adverse circumstances, I will start it soon.
--
FF


Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So many to choose from but still unable to present even a token specific ......

Again apparently unable and unwilling to demonstrate even one tiny example of a specific example of your point. Obviously you feel there is no purpose in presenting a simple fact when broad strokes of empty allegations will do.

Only in your own mind.....your confusing empty Obama campaign rhetoric with thinking for yourself. If I'm wrong I'd still be happy to hear anything that proves such silly allegations. Rod
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Rod & Betty Jo" wrote:

Time out.
I made a statement, you chose to challenge it.
No problem; however, the burden of proof of your challenge is in your court, not mine.
Lew
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lew Hodgett wrote:

You apparently misconstrued my intent...I did not intend nor did I particularly challenge any of your statements..... but rather I simply asked for the basis of your general sweeping rhetorical comments. If you have no foundation fell free to enjoy your time out. Rod
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Rod & Betty Jo" wrote:

I don't think so.

You could have surprised me.

Sweeping?
Really?
Lew
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
you could read McCain's web site for answers to your questions.  But I know it's more fun to pretend that McCain has said nothing about the above.
Yes, but, when he goes on National Television or at stump speeches he and Palin do so well, they do not talk about these things in any meaningful way.
They complain about "the Liberal Media" construing their words, but - when they have the opportunity to speak directly to the people in a live broadcast, they obfuscate like all hell and talk about scary Muslims wanting to blow us up and how great our troops are doing in the tough situation they put them in.
Yes, some can go to the web site and pour over self-serving statements designed to give the appearance of change and effective planning for a better future, But when we tune in to hear about it first hand, our hear then respond to serious questioners, we get pablum.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That was good opportunity to post a link to said site.
Ditto if you reply to this.
--
FF



Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'll give you a hint. The website has the name "johnmccain" in it. The rest is left as a exercise for the reader.
todd
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No kidding. If actual people were the object of the pejorative, then the pig is Bush and the pig with the lipstick is McCain.
Palin is no Cheney.
--
FF

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.