Liberals: When You Cant Win with Facts

I don't follow you. Do you beleive to Global warming or not?

I think that the fact that the average temperature of Earth is rising was now completely accepted. Quicker in the polar sections than the equatorial, as proven by many studies.

People are still debating if there is or not worldwide climate changes?

People are still debating if there is or not worldwide climate changes?

Only a few loons from the opposing side of that which DG describes.

What is up for debate, however, is the causes of such warming, be it man-made (which is likely true to at least some degree) or other natural variations, such as sun activity, interactions with other planets in the solar system, etc.

People are still debating if there is or not worldwide climate changes?

People are debating the cause, or even if there is a general warming trend, since the observable data is so small in relation to the entire life of the planet.  But even if we all accept global warming (and I am old enough to remember the scare of global cooling), the cause is not known, or even if any actions of man can do anything about it.

What is up for debate, however, is the causes of such warming, be it man-made (which is likely true to at least some degree) or other natural variations, such as sun activity, interactions with other planets in the solar system, etc.

And it is much too soon, with far too little data to say that one side has all the answers.

"I think that the fact that the average temperature of Earth is rising was now completely accepted. Quicker in the polar sections than the equatorial, as proven by many studies."

To which most of us say... so? The fact remains that the Earth has been hotter, all on its own without the help of what the luddites seem to think the problem is. You can't get intelligent debate on it, though, because they just shift into "How can you deny the earth is warming?" mode, and seem oblivious to the idea that the most fear mongering explanation might be just one of many.

No, we understand the Earth is warming up. It has been much warmer than now, and it has been much colder than now. As we've polluted the Earth has shifted more toward warming, but correlation does not equal causation. Nevertheless environmentalists would have us believe in knee jerk fashion that if witches burn, and wood burns, and wood floats, and ducks float, then witches must weigh the same as ducks.

No, we understand the Earth is warming up. It has been much warmer than now, and it has been much colder than now.

Exactly!  We dont know if this is a normal cycle or not.  Or that man can do anything or not.  But to the loons on the left, if we do not goose step to their ideas, we must be silenced through force.  And that is what I find the most objectionable and scary.  Far more scary than any perceived warming we might have.

I would suggest the loon at grist start in Buffalo NY.   If he gets out alive, then he might try Detroit and Cleveland.

The same people that accuse Bush and the republicans of "fear mongering" are the same one's who tell us the world is ending because of global warming, and it's all the fault of Bush and his oil friends.

If you guys would stop farting so much - the ozone layer may get a chance to repair itself!   

The same people that accuse Bush and the republicans of "fear mongering" are the same one's who tell us the world is ending because of global warming, and it's all the fault of Bush and his oil friends.

And when theirs does not work, they resort to bullying!  For that is what this is, pure and simple.  But the difference is, this bully has no clothes

Trying to silence the opposition is a hallmark of the extreme left so it's nothing new. I still find the whole warming debate to be pretty amusing.

On one hand you have a group who are convinced that evil Mankind is responsible despite the fact that the planet has been far warmer in the past, well before people. They believe that we're all doomed and Earth will burn to a cinder because of a little CO2.

On the other hand you have a group who don't believe Man's influence has anything to do with it at all. They believe we shouldn't worry about it at all.

In the middle are those who believe that it's all part of the natural cycle but accept the fact that Man's influence may or may not affect it. They believe that taking sensible steps to curb pollution is a good idea. They also have the most fun watching the first two groups fight with each other.

If you guys would stop farting so much - the ozone layer may get a chance to repair itself!

But then we would explode and you would have no men!

In the middle are those who believe that it's all part of the natural cycle but accept the fact that Man's influence may or may not affect it. They believe that taking sensible steps to curb pollution is a good idea. They also have the most fun watching the first two groups fight with each other.

That would be most of us. However, controlling polution is not part of the debate really. It is called good health. But holding our farts in? (as algore wants us to believe) will not make a difference. besides, the most polluted areas of earth are not here, but in EXEMPT countries under their precious Kyoto Agreement.

Well, pollution is really at the heart of the debate isn't it? The whole thing is about reducing the gases we pump into the air (pollution).

I agree about the most polluted areas being those excluded by Kyoto.

I am all for reducing our spoilage of the planet, I just disagree with the premise that our influence has much if anything to do with the global warming issue.

And there are some out there whom I wish would hold in their farts. At least until they find a restroom.

I remember the "next ice age" stuff from when I was a kid. A colder than normal winter and we were all doomed to freeze to death.
How long have we had accurate weather records - a few hundred years?

I also remember the: milk, butter, eggs, coffee, chocolate, radon gas, get some sun - stay out of the sun, color TV, transistor radios, alar, if Kennedy gets elected the vatican will relocate to Washington, blah, blah, blah scares.
One from my Dad (WW2 radarman), "Well honey, the only thing is it makes you sterile - but it's for the war effort." Perhaps I have more siblings than the ones I grew up with.

Perhaps Al Gore has been holding in his farts. That might explain his bloated opinions.

I believe we should all hop into our Lear jets and fly all over the world preaching about the dangers of global warming.

Now that is the way to cut down on greenhouse gases.

And there are some out there whom I wish would hold in their farts. At least until they find a restroom

! Good one M!


It would be great to have debates as important as this without one side blaming the other. But then that's just not how the people in our world works right? I also think they are lunes to about the no dissent part. I guess we should all be carted off to the bastille...wait, those days are over, or are they?!

Well, I won't object to the fact that the Earth has been hotter (and colder) in the past. However, the recent changes are really exponential - which correlate with the exponential increase of pollution, worldwide -.

I find something funny: You are ready to beleive one side or the other. The "Humanity has nothing to do with it" side is backed by billion of dollars of the polluting industries who doesn't want to loose some profits, while the "Humanity is causing it" is backed by... what? Tree-huggers who has no money to offer them?

Two sides. One with billions of dollars, the other as poor as Job. But the poor-one is slowly gaining popularity, even if there isn't billions in their pockets about it.

Still beleiving scientists who says "Humanity has nothing to do with it"? I wonder who pay their bills...

Liberal Wacko Debate Outline:

1: Come up with an issue.
2: Come up with an emotional argument.
3: Find a posterchild to become the face of the issue.
4: Anytime anyone apposes the issue, accuse them of being an insensitive bigot and/or too backward to understand.
5: Repeat #4 as often as needed, as long as nobody actually looks over the facts.


For example:

1: Global Warming
2: We are destroying the planet with our insensitive ways!
3: Our children's children's children. ("we don't inherit the environment from are paren't, we borrow it from our children).
4: Corporations, the beef industry, devolopers, loggers, the petroleum industry (etc, etc, etc) are not doing their part to control emissions. The U.S. is evil for not signing Kyoto...

Flaws in the whole liberal argument...

~No one has even established a cause of global warming, so NO ONE knows if it's manmade or not.
~OPEC is evil, except for Hugo Chavez, who is a liberal hero.
~Kyoto is the most important step towards relieving the planet of global warming... but let the Chinese and other nations continue to spew greenhouse gasses.

For an earth shattering problem, it's "cures" seem awfully political.

So, you say that there should be an international treaty, with huge teeths, chopping down any greenhouse spewers? I mean, what side of the fence are you?

Why is the arguments of Anti-Kyoto : "It too political, not solving the problem!". This is the demonstration about how much some peoples are brainwhashed. Even if they are against an issue, they try to bash it with arguments that should come from the other side!

Now, if you had said: "Kyoto won't change a thing because human emmissions doesn'T have a thing to do", I would have understood. But are you so much against Kyoto that you will use Pro-environnementalist and Anti-Environnementalist arguments?

Pro-Environnementalists agreed to Kyoto, 'cause it's the first step in the right direction. A small step, 'cause lobbyist are putting billions of dollars to stop it.

Because the industry, while not "evil" as you think we depict it, wants to hold on their profits at all cost (or at least, until the cost of keeping the profits will exceed said-profits), because they are a business, and that's what businesses do.

Pro-Envir. have made a compromise, they began small, hoping to improve with time. The industry (and the U.S.A.) don't want to impliment it because:

- It is bad for the industry
- It won't succeed it's objectives.

Is it me, or the 2 reasons are just contradictions? You can't do one without scraping the other...

Cikomyr: That's exactly my point. The side that says global warming is man made, and can be ended by man, first says, "we need Kyoto" yet, on the other hand, allows for so many political exemtions the whole thing becomes pointless. The same with the arguments about how evil OPEC is... unless it's Hugo Chavez getting the huge profits.

I don't want the examples to become the argument here, I was just using them to show that even those who seem convinced it manmade and can be fixed are willing to allow their political allies to continue killing the planet... it's only their political enemies that seem to have to change and pay.

"Two sides. One with billions of dollars, the other as poor as Job. But the poor-one is slowly gaining popularity, even if there isn't billions in their pockets about it."

I think that statement exemplifies how brainwashed the environmentalist side can be in all this. You think there is no money behind the people who are promoting the idea of man-made global warming? You think that Gore made his movie for nothing?

Who pays all these lobbyists? They work for free? Who puts out these publications? Who finances all these independent studies? Come on...

I think that statement exemplifies how brainwashed the environmentalist side can be in all this. You think there is no money behind the people who are promoting the idea of man-made global warming? You think that Gore made his movie for nothing? Who pays all these lobbyists? They work for free? Who puts out these publications? Who finances all these independent studies? Come on...

Bakerstreet, accepting that reality would remove the "grass roots" "david and goliath" "you and me agaisnt the world" romance of it all. If they have to admit there is billions backing it, then they might find that their side is just as about profit as the evil corporations... maybe even more.

"Global Warming as caused by Man" is the product they are selling. It is just as important for them to put it on every kitchen table as it is for Coka Cola to get their product into every glass. And the dirty little reality is, they will work, bend the truth, and use every flashy gimic and jingle at their disposal to do it.

Why is the arguments of Anti-Kyoto : "It too political, not solving the problem!". This is the demonstration about how much some peoples are brainwhashed. Even if they are against an issue, they try to bash it with arguments that should come from the other side!

"You" better go re-read the Kyoto protocols again. It penalizes the US while giving exemptions to some of the biggest polluters.

(drmiler, I'll come back to you)

You telling me that the Global Warming is the salad Gore&Co are trying to sell? While I agree that politicans simply supports values to advance their agendas, I see that your arguments are totaly failed.

Exemple: Bush is trying to put Kyoto and the Global Warming to the garbage. He is a politican, and his agenda is better served that way. Why? 'Cause he will receive much, much money out of polluting industries (shall they be oil, cars, or any others) for doing so.

Gore knows very well he will never be able to get that kind of monatery(good spelling?) support, so he instead tries to get a political support from the environnementalists, who have 1/100 of the money available from the polluting industries.

Both are politicians, both are backed by their sides. However, the arguments of the industries are self-serving. They make more money if nothing is done to regulate greenhouse emissions.

What does the environnementalists have to gain out of it? They won't gain much $, they aren't in business. Their goals are purely value-oriented. And it has been proved that any environnementalist political parties is successful in a region if the powers in place don't do the job to solve problems. The second a government do as they ask, the "Green Party" (as called in Canada here) loose supports, since there isn't reason to vote for them anyway.

Hey, do you realise that? They petition to LOOSE political support from the population?

Drmiler,

it is true that Kyoto only penalize the rich countries (U.S. are still the #1 world-wide polluters). China and India, while quickly climbing the greenhouse-ladder, aren't in the top - yet -. We'll get to that later..

U.S.A. is the country that has the more opportunity to reduce world-wide greenhouse emmision. Your industries are richer than anyone, they are prospering and expanding. While it's true that the industry would loose some of it's efficiency - for a short while - if changes like Kyoto would have been applied, it would have been a good step in the right direction.

Have you heard of the Carbon-Market? It's supposed to be able to legislate greenhouse emissions for every businesses, and if one is producing more than allowed, it has to buy some "Carbon-credit" to an industry who produced less than allowed. Which would be a great financial insentive to industries to develop new green ways to make a buck, since they could make 2 out of it!

I see every components in an Efficient Market there. And an efficient market is something America stands for. The only problem, you have to legislate all of it, which necessitate Federal Government's willingness. Which kinda lacks, right now..

As new green ways to make a buck are developping, experience makes these "ways" much more efficient with time, and the whole U.S.A. will become a low-greenhouse region. And about at that time, the developping countries (China and India) will be forced to reduce ITS Greenhouse emmisions. If the U.S.A. caught the drift in time, American business would be able to sell carbon-credit on the international market, make a good profit out of it.

Eventually, Third-world industries will also make the efficient change, still using the West's expertise in a field they totaly have no exprience.


Why do we have to target the rich countries first? Because they have the capital to start it all. China, while becoming more and more prosperous every day, is far from having any opportunity to do so.