Yeah, it's "science".

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTB...WM=&w=MA==

Why has a scientist lied about the data for so long? Because there is no data that can be verified independently. Marvelous. Junk Science.

I find it ironic that there was a Prius ad on that page.

.

There never was any REAL goods to begin with, just a bunch of Al Gorish fantasy.

Poor Father Barack, another Legacy down the toilet.

Will he ever win one ???

.

I think we are heading for another ice age before we all burn up in a tremendous heat.

(09-25-2009 12:31 PM)ETSUfan1 Wrote:  I think we are heading for another ice age before we all burn up in a tremendous heat.

I think all the "creationists" above are complete morons[especially the good doctor(doctor, yeah right. I laugh everytime he posts because they are so stupid)]. I agree that there will be an ice age but in portions of the world. Also, I think you are exagerating when you say "we all burn up in tremendous heat". It won't go up that much(at least right away and we don't do anything after we find out that it is happening) to fry us like you suggest.

"He is a fellow of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, and edits the World Climate Report, published and funded by the not-for-profit organization Greening Earth Society created by the Western Fuels Association." From Wiki. Western fuels Association? Yeah, the man isn't biased or anything.

Torchy, give it up. You can't win this.

(09-25-2009 01:24 PM)RobertN Wrote:  "He is a fellow of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, and edits the World Climate Report, published and funded by the not-for-profit organization Greening Earth Society created by the Western Fuels Association." From Wiki. Western fuels Association? Yeah, the man isn't biased or anything.
Torchy, give it up. You can't win this.

Do you have anything from an unbiased source to counter his points?

Of course not, because there is no such thing as an unbiased source on this issue.

The left wants to shut down private industy and go to a global socialized economy managed by left wing goverments. Global Warming is the sham that the left uses to give the government authority to take over industry and control production. Cap and trade, Kyoto treaty its all design to shift control to centralized goverment. This isn't about a greener or cleaner planet. Its all about power. The free market place will correct the enviroment in time if that is what people want. Right now most folks can't afford electic cars, so the market place still chooses oil/gas powered based cars.

People want to believe what they want to on this issue. It has been debated here ad nauseum. I offered to send everyone on here a DVD produced by NASA explaining each issue line by line. It's very telling that no one took me up on the offer. It's settled science to scientists. It really is.

(09-25-2009 05:24 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  People want to believe what they want to on this issue. It has been debated here ad nauseum. I offered to send everyone on here a DVD produced by NASA explaining each issue line by line. It's very telling that no one took me up on the offer. It's settled science to scientists. It really is.

No, it's not either. It may be settled to some scientists, but not to all of them.

It's settle to Patrick J. Michaels. Or at least it was back in 2007. Maybe now that the dog ate it not so much

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8651

Quote:Fact: The average surface temperature of the Earth is about 0.8 C warmer than it was in 1900, and human beings have something to do with it.

(09-25-2009 05:24 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  People want to believe what they want to on this issue. It has been debated here ad nauseum. I offered to send everyone on here a DVD produced by NASA explaining each issue line by line. It's very telling that no one took me up on the offer. It's settled science to scientists. It really is.

...i.e.... I don't want to listen to anyone or any other ideas.

Where have the "open" minded liberals gone? Take about closed minded......

(09-25-2009 06:43 PM)jh Wrote:  It's settle to Patrick J. Michaels. Or at least it was back in 2007. Maybe now that the dog ate it not so much

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8651

Quote:Fact: The average surface temperature of the Earth is about 0.8 C warmer than it was in 1900, and human beings have something to do with it.

THIS is the problem with this argument...

He says man has had something to do with that... which we take to mean without man, it would have been less... though we certainly had 1 degree temperature variations over 100 years without mans impact. How do we know that without man it wouldn't have been 1.2 degrees??

Global population has gone from 1.7byn to 6.8byn since 1900... almost a 4 fold increase... and the temperature has risen by less than 1 degree. We've gone from virtually NO idnustrialization to virtually global industrialization. Best estimates I've seen (which are worthless) say we'll get to about 9byn in the next 100 years... Do we REALLY expect the number of cars, factories etc to increase at the same rate in the next 100 years as in the last 100 years??

So WHY do we project man having a GREATER impact rather than a lesser one going forward... OF COURSE man is impacting the earth. Should we BAN MAN??

More important to the point of things like Kyoto... WHY do we put more pressure on places like the US, where everyone owns a car and drives it to the mailbox... so our use of fuels isn't likely to increase much... and so little on places like China, where there is 1 car for every 20 people and their use of fossil fuels is likely to increase by an order of magnitude in the future? ESPECIALLY when we could improve so much more of their ecological problem for so much less money??

(09-25-2009 06:43 PM)jh Wrote:  It's settle to Patrick J. Michaels. Or at least it was back in 2007. Maybe now that the dog ate it not so much

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8651

Quote:Fact: The average surface temperature of the Earth is about 0.8 C warmer than it was in 1900, and human beings have something to do with it.

Maybe thermometers are more accurate now.

(09-25-2009 01:28 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-25-2009 01:24 PM)RobertN Wrote:  "He is a fellow of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, and edits the World Climate Report, published and funded by the not-for-profit organization Greening Earth Society created by the Western Fuels Association." From Wiki. Western fuels Association? Yeah, the man isn't biased or anything.
Torchy, give it up. You can't win this.

Do you have anything from an unbiased source to counter his points?

Of course not, because there is no such thing as an unbiased source on this issue.

Robert doesn't do counter points. He's too stupid to understand how to form them. He's a trolling flamer who just jumps into a thread to feed his insatiable need to be a douche bag.

He's a 37 year old virgin that lives on welfare and lives in government housing. He has no college education and barely made it out of high school. This isn't the kind of person who does counter points.

(09-25-2009 11:26 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  More important to the point of things like Kyoto... WHY do we put more pressure on places like the US, where everyone owns a car and drives it to the mailbox... so our use of fuels isn't likely to increase much... and so little on places like China, where there is 1 car for every 20 people and their use of fossil fuels is likely to increase by an order of magnitude in the future? ESPECIALLY when we could improve so much more of their ecological problem for so much less money??

I'm pretty sure Patrick J. Michaels, he of the Cato Institute & publisher of the Western States Fuel Association journal, is not in favor of the Kyoto Agreement. He states in the article I linked that global warming is real but that it's not a dire threat and that there's really nothing we can do about it anyways.

Is it any comfort that Cass Sunstein has argued that neither corrective nor distributive justice arguments justify treating the United States any different than the developing world when discussing CO2 emissions? That's a voice of reason in Obama's ear.

(09-26-2009 08:37 PM)jh Wrote:  Is it any comfort that Cass Sunstein has argued that neither corrective nor distributive justice arguments justify treating the United States any different than the developing world when discussing CO2 emissions? That's a voice of reason in Obama's ear.

That could also be considered a voice of reason within Cass Sunstein's brain.

Neither his brain nor Obama's ear are overfilled with reason.

(09-25-2009 01:28 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-25-2009 01:24 PM)RobertN Wrote:  "He is a fellow of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, and edits the World Climate Report, published and funded by the not-for-profit organization Greening Earth Society created by the Western Fuels Association." From Wiki. Western fuels Association? Yeah, the man isn't biased or anything.
Torchy, give it up. You can't win this.

Do you have anything from an unbiased source to counter his points?

Of course not, because there is no such thing as an unbiased source on this issue.

Cato Institute? Please. Not even worth wasting your time with counterpoints.