Island Dog Island Dog

AP is another Global Warming Alarmist

▼

AP is another Global Warming Alarmist

from JoeUser Forums

When I read this piece from the AP, I didn’t know whether it was a real story or a propaganda piece from Al Gore.

“WASHINGTON -- When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Now it is a ticking time bomb that President-elect Barack Obama can't avoid.

Since Clinton's inauguration, summer Arctic sea ice has lost the equivalent of Alaska, California and Texas. The 10 hottest years on record have occurred since Clinton's second inauguration. Global warming is accelerating. Time is close to running out, and Obama knows it.”

Is there anything left in journalism?  Does anybody wonder why newspapers and other media outlets are going out of business?

24,883 views 65 replies
Reply #51 from JoeUser Forums Top

If there's no negative impact (other than the actual costs involved) of cutting emmissions, and there's a possible positive impact, you could have a very low likelihood, and a 'small/not that significant' impact, and then 'it is logical that if you can cut greenhouse gases at no cost to anyone, you should.'
End of quote

Change the last word to 'can' and I'm with you.  The 'should' part is very shaky at best.  The 'at no cost to anyone' part is a pipe dream.

Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion
Reply #53 from Stardock Forums Top

http://www.theage.com.au/national/coldest-winter-in-10-years-bureau-20080530-2k0o.html

http://www.danwei.org/front_page_of_the_day/beijing_winter.php

http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-news/2008/10/29/coldest-october-weather-for-34-years-61634-22140498/

http://www.agweb.com/get_article.aspx?pageid=135336&src=gennews

I know the rant - global warming is causing cold weather. And you can send me $10 with a return envelope for the secret to long life.

Reply #54 from PolMach Forums Top

Quoting Nitro, reply 3
http://www.theage.com.au/national/coldest-winter-in-10-years-bureau-20080530-2k0o.html

http://www.danwei.org/front_page_of_the_day/beijing_winter.php

http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-news/2008/10/29/coldest-october-weather-for-34-years-61634-22140498/

http://www.agweb.com/get_article.aspx?pageid=135336&src=gennews

I know the rant - global warming is causing cold weather. And you can send me $10 with a return envelope for the secret to long life.
End of Nitro's quote

 

YOu can never win with the GW people if its warm its due to GW... if its cold its because of GW... they want the cake too... I have givin up and in fact for every "green" person that ticks me off I drive an extra 5 miles just for them

Reply #55 from JoeUser Forums Top

And you can send me $10 with a return envelope for the secret to long life.
End of quote

 

Hey NC, we could throw in a raffle to auction off some ocean front property in Arizona (that I have)?

Reply #56 from Stardock Forums Top

Don't forget about Newsweek:

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/12/23/christmas-snow-job/

It doesn't make sense to me at all either.  Overall global warming causes blizzards?  Huh?  Ever heard of the Law of Non-Contradiction?

Not to mention that anthropogenic climate change advocates were screaming that global cooling would kill us all, and not so long ago either.  Then it was global warming that would kill us all.  Then, to explain their previous hysteria, they say that global warming causes global cooling.

I am quite thoroughly convinced that the only reason that the media and a majority of scientists say global warming is a man-made problem is that they're on the gravy train.  Scientists get quite a bit of grant money to solve the global warming problem, and the media gets to run countless horror stories that grab people's attention.  Follow that up with the ignorance of the masses, and voila!  A global problem!

Reply #57 from JoeUser Forums Top

Scientists generally agree that the earth is warming. They also generally agree that there is a fairly high likelihood a significant amount of the warming is due to greenhouse gases.
End of quote

Agree is not know.  Not even close.  The first is generally true and has been happening for the last 10k years.  According to those same scientiests.  If there were green house gasses back then, they were not man's.

And most of the green house gasses today are not man's.  It seems you are arguing that they dont know what tehy are talking about.  And in that you got something right.

Reply #58 from JoeUser Forums Top

If there were green house gasses back then, they were not man's.
End of quote

Doc, beans have been around for a LONG time! *_*

 

Yep, here's some info on Global Warming LINK.

Reply #59 from PolMach Forums Top

Quoting Adventure-Dude, reply 8

If there were green house gasses back then, they were not man's.
Doc, beans have been around for a LONG time!

 

Yep, here's some info on Global Warming LINK.
End of Adventure-Dude's quote

 

dont forget the tax on farmers for every cow that they have... after all the farts from cows also pollute the air too!

Reply #60 from JoeUser Forums Top

dont forget the tax on farmers for every cow that they have... after all the farts from cows also pollute the air too!
End of quote

LINK Another reason why you stay away from the backend. :moo:

Reply #61 from JoeUser Forums Top

Doc, beans have been around for a LONG time!
End of quote

:LOL:

Ok, but the mammoths were doing the farting!

Reply #62 from PolMach Forums Top

Right, so everyone else should suffer because you decided to buy a house miles away from your job without any decent public transport links, and then decided to buy a polluting vehicle. I mean it couldn't possibly be your own fault for forcing yourself into that method of transportation now, could it?

When I'm looking for a house, the distance of it to my work is a significant factor. If I go for one further away it's cheaper, but it also limits my transport options. So if I do go for one that's further away, and benefit from getting a nicer house for the price I pay, I deserve to then lose out if cars are taxed appropriately for the damage they cause. In some ways it's the same as if I didn't purchase insurance for my home and it got burgled - I didn't pay insurance, meaning all the time I wasn't burgled I benefited by having more money than the person who did. Then I get burgled, and I end up worse off. Would you support a nice big cash handout to the burgled-non-insured person? I mean it's really screwed up that persons life to lose all their possessions and not have any money to replace them with.
End of quote

Try living in a rural area.  It is very difficult where I live to find reasonable housing near my job, and even so I work at a job where most public transportation isn't allowed on site due to security reasons.  Sure I could get a different job, but jobs in my field are few and far between around here.  Yes some of these were definitely my choices but why should I be forced to live in an urban environment just to satisfy the global warming alarmists?

Reply #63 from JoeUser Forums Top

but why should I be forced to live in an urban environment just to satisfy the global warming alarmists?
End of quote

It will not be should - it will be mandatory.  Camp houses will be back, and it will not be only because of the great leap forward from Chairman Obama.

Reply #64 from PolMach Forums Top

Quoting EL-DUDERINO, reply 12

Right, so everyone else should suffer because you decided to buy a house miles away from your job without any decent public transport links, and then decided to buy a polluting vehicle. I mean it couldn't possibly be your own fault for forcing yourself into that method of transportation now, could it?

When I'm looking for a house, the distance of it to my work is a significant factor. If I go for one further away it's cheaper, but it also limits my transport options. So if I do go for one that's further away, and benefit from getting a nicer house for the price I pay, I deserve to then lose out if cars are taxed appropriately for the damage they cause. In some ways it's the same as if I didn't purchase insurance for my home and it got burgled - I didn't pay insurance, meaning all the time I wasn't burgled I benefited by having more money than the person who did. Then I get burgled, and I end up worse off. Would you support a nice big cash handout to the burgled-non-insured person? I mean it's really screwed up that persons life to lose all their possessions and not have any money to replace them with.
Try living in a rural area.  It is very difficult where I live to find reasonable housing near my job, and even so I work at a job where most public transportation isn't allowed on site due to security reasons.  Sure I could get a different job, but jobs in my field are few and far between around here.  Yes some of these were definitely my choices but why should I be forced to live in an urban environment just to satisfy the global warming alarmists?
End of EL-DUDERINO's quote

 

ahhh there people just dont understand .... they think people like me and you can just pack up and plan for 30 years down the road.

Did I plan on having disabled kids? I guess to people like this I should have seen it coming and preped for it.

I buy cars that I  can afford. When were the green cars introduced? I bought a used car last year because I could not afford a new car ( that and im working on my credit... ) but o wait I should have gotten the 40000 dollar car because well its the right thing to do

Bottom line is... unless its affordable these tree huggers need to sthu... Unless they are going to make up the cost of living in a bigger city for rent and such they need to shut up too.

Reply #65 from JoeUser Forums Top

This taken from Fox: LINK

 

The expanding sun: If all else fails, the Earth will almost certainly come to an end in about 5 billion years when it falls into the expanding sun.

It's perfectly natural — stars like ours simply turn into red giants near the end of their lifespans, and their inner planets become toast.

Terrestrial inhabitants need not worry, since they'll be boiled off much earlier by the sheer heat of the growing star.

Some scenarios say we've got only a billion good years left on this planet — rather gloomy, since life in some form has been around for about 3.7 billion years and this means we're already close to the end.

Wow, and here I thought we were the problem?