Pavlov, Lemmings, BS, & Strawberries

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by XXL TideFan, May 24, 2009.

Page 2 of 26
  1. USMTiger

    USMTiger Founding Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,668
    Likes Received:
    167
    I thought that calling people who don't agree with you "lemmings" is something you did in college while passing around a joint and a bottle of whiskey.
     
    USMTiger, May 24, 2009
    #11
  2. USMTiger

    USMTiger Founding Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,668
    Likes Received:
    167
    So you believe that climate changes causes man?
     
    USMTiger, May 24, 2009
    #12
    1 person likes this.
  3. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    well it at least has allowed man to exist. the earth used to be way too cold for us.

    yunno the ice age we are leaving now would have been permanent (for no reason) if it were not for us. you name it, we caused it. if not for us the earth would have just stopped changing a few years ago and stayed the same forever.

    in fact the earth was about to just stop acting like it has for billions of years and go to a static climate, if not for us. damn us!
     
    martin, May 25, 2009
    #13
    1 person likes this.
  4. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    Another oft-repeated fairy tale that you can't prove. Some climatologists were predicting another ice age and were speaking in terms of geologic time, but most climatologists were not. The global warming that we are experiencing is happening in historic time.
     
    red55, May 25, 2009
    #14
  5. SabanFan

    SabanFan The voice of reason

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    26,080
    Likes Received:
    1,247
    This is why I miss having you around. :thumb:

    I'd give you rep points but it would only piss you off.:hihi:

    Whatever, Red.

    Time Magazine, 6/24/74:

    Another Ice Age? - TIME
     
    SabanFan, May 25, 2009
    #15
  6. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    There are certain issues that I speak about with confidence. So do you, as in your haughty defense of AIG.

    A spade is still a spade. I've backed my assertions with one scientific reference after another. But 90% of the response is political. "Al Gore" they scream, "kooks!"

    Of course it is, to you! That is exactly my point!

    My position has never been political on global warming. I've never cited Al Gore as a source, I've cited real climatologists and the authoritative IPCC report. I've never supported the Kyoto Treaty, a one-sided political issue. But denying the real problem at hand is not necessary in order to recognize and not support a politically bad treaty.

    Al Gore is an entertainer and he's not the voices I'm listening to. I'm listening to the people who study climate and know exactly what they are talking about. You are aping Limbaugh's line and you call me gullible.

    What in the world are you talking about. :huh:
     
    red55, May 25, 2009
    #16
  7. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    I've also shot down this screwy notion before. It has little understanding of how the scientific research business works.

    Tenure protects most academics from political influence and the scientific review process that it takes to get published in the accredited journals is rigorous. Dogmatic opinion, unsubstantiated claims, and politically tinged work does not make the cut. That's why you have to give credence to the journaled work over popular articles in Time magazine, TV documentaries, and "reports" produced and distributed by industry or political groups.
     
    red55, May 25, 2009
    #17
  8. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    In geologic time, you are absolutely correct. There are million-year cycles. The glaciers come and go thousands of times and human impact is a flyspeck on 5-billion year old planet.

    But who really gives a rat's ass about a billion years from now.

    We have a measured, considerable, and undeniable impact in historic times and humans will have to deal with the changes that we bring on in this time, from pollution, to overpopulation, to global epidemics, and to global warming.

    I'm talking about making things better for humans in the human time frame. Sure the glaciers will return someday and we will all be dead. But that ain't the point. I'm not lobbying to waste resources on things that can't be fixed . . . only to fix the things that we can with the resources that we have.
     
    red55, May 25, 2009
    #18
  9. SabanFan

    SabanFan The voice of reason

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    26,080
    Likes Received:
    1,247
    The scientists and climatologists you so eagerly embrace are motivated by one thing: The tax dollars that they get to continue their never ending research.

    Al Gore and his cronies stand to make billions once cap and trade is foisted upon us, the innocent taxpayers.

    If humans disappeared today, the climate would not be affected. Links?

    Common Sense.com
    Stop Drinking the KoolAid.com
     
    SabanFan, May 25, 2009
    #19
  10. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    this is not possible without knowing what the earth would be like without us, which we cannot know. but we do know one thing; the climate is and always will be changing. i know we humans are desperate to feel guilty about something, but maybe we should hold off for a minute.

    were things exactly perfect at some arbitrary point in time such that any change from that is "worse" and needs to be "fixed"?

    and how do you know if these things can be "fixed"? is there a point at which the horrible things we have done to the earth are irreversibly bad and we die? when is that? how many folks will die if we dont "fix" it? how much will it cost to fix? how many people could we save if we used that same money to, for example, save the millions of folks that die from aids or malaria or malnutrition or trade restrictions right now, today?

    global warming is the perfect problem for rich white first world liberals. it is always at some point in the future that the problem is waiting, so we can always have the threat available to manipulate each other without it really doing harm.

    the main problem in the world today is poverty and lack of development. the solution to that is modernizing the economies of poor countries, which is what global warming fanatics will prevent, thus insuring that people continue to live with poverty and disease and death. global warmign is the concern of the rich, because everyone else has other problems. the chinese fellow deperate to make enough money to keep his daughter out of prostitution isnt really concerned about this nonense, he just wants the job at the pollution factory cranking out junk for wal-mart. and his priorities are in order.
     
    martin, May 25, 2009
    #20
    1 person likes this.
Page 2 of 26

Share This Page