Trimdingman Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 (edited) Global warming is not a fact. Records show hat the earth is 2 degrees warmer than 100 years ago. I do not trust that measurement was that accurate in 1906, nor the extrapolation to world wide temperatures. Here is a fact - the U. S. Federal Imperial Government has mortgaged this country to the hilt and our grandchildren will be working 6 months of every year just to pay for the stupid entitlement and vote buying schemes we let politicians get by with. That is much more worrysome than global warming. Up north here in Canada, we have the same problem. At least your president has enough sense not to sign on to that stupid Koyoto. The left is afraid we will become too prosperous, and they will lose their voter base, so they have to come up with ways to suck money out of the economy. Tomorrow, we are having a federal election. The polls say that those left-wing bastards are toast. I am more excited about seeing their long-deserved demise than I am concerned about the Ford announcement. Edited January 22, 2006 by Trimdingman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
methos Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 The evidence to prove that human activity is not destroying the earth is that we are still here. Mother Nature is robust enough to withstand anything we can do to her. If we were to really piss her off, she would expell us from the planet. Every pollutant comes from the earth. We do not import them from another universe. To believe that we as a species are greater than Mother Nature is supreme arrogance. WTF? The last time I checked this was the only inhabitable planet we know of, yet, your solution is let's do nothing until we and the planet are all dead or changed for the worst. and since that has not happened global warming must be bogus? That has to be the most idiotic premise I have ever heard, and I've heard quite a few. Global warming is no longer fuzzy logic and the evidence is overwelming. No one seriously argues against it except some hold out republicans and businesses. Any argument against it is futile anyways for we are nearing the end of any increases in energy supplies. Look at the news, with all the international squabbling over gas contracts and oil. The price of gas and oil are at all time highs and demand is still increasing. We have to come to grips as a nation and lower our energy needs if we are to have any chance at all in the new global economy. If not for the sake of mother earth, then perhaps national security interests and a more robust economy in the long-term due to lower current account deficits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 Then when the Vikings discovered Greenland it was warm enough to farm. That is why they called it Greenland. http://www.timeforkids.com/TFK/magazines/s...7,93360,00.html They called it Greenland because there were no "Truth in Advertising" laws back then :lol: ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 (edited) WTF? The last time I checked this was the only inhabitable planet we know of, yet, your solution is let's do nothing until we and the planet are all dead or changed for the worst. and since that has not happened global warming must be bogus? That has to be the most idiotic premise I have ever heard, and I've heard quite a few. Global warming is no longer fuzzy logic and the evidence is overwelming. No one seriously argues against it except some hold out republicans and businesses. Any argument against it is futile anyways for we are nearing the end of any increases in energy supplies. Look at the news, with all the international squabbling over gas contracts and oil. The price of gas and oil are at all time highs and demand is still increasing. We have to come to grips as a nation and lower our energy needs if we are to have any chance at all in the new global economy. If not for the sake of mother earth, then perhaps national security interests and a more robust economy in the long-term due to lower current account deficits. Do you believe that we should waste many billions of dollars fighting global warming even though we don't even know if it exists, and if it does, it is caused by the sun, and we can't do anything about it? You say no one argues against it? Where have you been? Scientists have threatened lawsuits over being misquoted by environmentalists. Hold out Republicans? Last time I looked, they were in the majority. As for energy supplies, who is it that fights tooth and nail against us every time we want to find more oil? I really don't get it. It makes me suspect that our enemies are backing them. How about using some intelligence, and putting the money to practical use to help the environment. Canada has signed on to Kyoto, which will cost us many billions per year, and do absolutely nothing for the environment. I want to have a clean environment more than most. A clean environment would put the environmental industry out of business. That is why they will never come up with a real solution. Politics and science don't mix. Edited April 7, 2006 by Trimdingman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 http://www.timeforkids.com/TFK/magazines/s...7,93360,00.html They called it Greenland because there were no "Truth in Advertising" laws back then :lol: ... You should be on TV. LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluecon Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 http://www.timeforkids.com/TFK/magazines/s...7,93360,00.html They called it Greenland because there were no "Truth in Advertising" laws back then :lol: ... Did you actually read this article? First quote "the settlement was actually a large farm where Vikings lived for more than 300 years." Six buildings of stone and peat (rotted moss and other plants) had up to 30 rooms each." Farm would be a key word here. For 300years. 2nd quote "the weather got worse and trade dried up." The weather got worse as perhaps in colder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 (edited) Did you actually read this article? First quote "the settlement was actually a large farm where Vikings lived for more than 300 years." Six buildings of stone and peat (rotted moss and other plants) had up to 30 rooms each." Farm would be a key word here. For 300years. 2nd quote "the weather got worse and trade dried up." The weather got worse as perhaps in colder. I read it, and as I first stated, the name Greenland was invented by Eric the Red to fool people into coming there. Edited April 7, 2006 by Trimdingman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluecon Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 I read it, and as I first stated, the name Greenland was invented by Eric the Red to fool people into coming there. (I already knew that). Bluecon, let's kick some butt. One thing everybody seems to forget it was Bill Clinton who never put the Kyoto treaty forward. Kyoto predates George W. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 (edited) One thing everybody seems to forget it was Bill Clinton who never put the Kyoto treaty forward. Kyoto predates George W. Even Bill has more sense than Canadian Liberals. Prosperity is to a Liberal as a Christian cross is to a vampire. Edited January 23, 2006 by Trimdingman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marc-o Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 I am sorry, but I have to be blunt here. I have deep, deep roots here in America. If yourt heart is not here, and if your objective is our demise, then you had better watch yourself, because we will get you. You may end up like in a rat in a hole like your friend, Saddam. That's got to be the worst argument yet. Basically the same argument that got the US in Iraq - if you oppose the government's view, you're anti-American and against us. Pathetic! For all the arguments you mention about scientists being against global warming, you neglect to mention there are an equal number that are willing to put their careers on the line backing up the idea that global warming is real - even scientists can't agree. In that context, the fact is NO ONE knows FOR SURE, and therefore the best thing to do is to limit ourselves until we do. I sure as hell don't expect to wait until we all die to find out whether global warming was real or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 (edited) Edited February 27, 2006 by Trimdingman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marc-o Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 As for the war, how do you think the American people would have reacted if your president had said: "I know we have been attacked, but let's not get carried away. We have to ask the UN for their advice." Or if FDR had said after the attack on Pearl Harbour: " Maybe we should try some diplomacy. We can always rebuild our fleet." Would that have satisfied your appeasement mentality? Your country was built by men with balls. I am not even an American, but I was ready to nuke the bastards after 9/11, and still am, as a last resort. Tell your Uncle Sam, if he needs a middle-aged recruit to go to Iraq, I'm available. (Just pay my Ford wages.) I hate to change the topic like this, but if you think the threat from Iraq was anything direct on US soil, you've been gravely misinformed and obviously are not up to date on what's been going on in the world. FYI: Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, Saddam had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda, and there were no nukes - in fact, there were no stockpiles of WMDs or any ready to be used at 45 minutes' notice. If you're this far off on the Iraq situation, I guess that explains where you stand on global warming - Kyoto isn't exactly the wisest use of funds, but I would definitely not say it's a useless waste. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 (edited) Edited February 27, 2006 by Trimdingman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluecon Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 That's got to be the worst argument yet. Basically the same argument that got the US in Iraq - if you oppose the government's view, you're anti-American and against us. Pathetic! For all the arguments you mention about scientists being against global warming, you neglect to mention there are an equal number that are willing to put their careers on the line backing up the idea that global warming is real - even scientists can't agree. In that context, the fact is NO ONE knows FOR SURE, and therefore the best thing to do is to limit ourselves until we do. I sure as hell don't expect to wait until we all die to find out whether global warming was real or not. There has been repeat episodes of global cooling. An ice age only 10,000 years ago. Are you sure we are not headed for an ice age? What caused the last ice age?(it was pre-SUV) What if we start messing around with the earth and trigger an ice age? I don't believe we can control the temperature of the earth but looking at history of the earth an ice age is more likely than global warming. Although I don't know the exact definition of global warming. How much temp increase and how fast? I watch the weather news on TV and they are lucky to be right one day ahead. Yet they can predict the weather for the next million years? Most scientist thought the earth was flat and a heavier than air vehicle could not fly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marc-o Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 Most scientist thought the earth was flat and a heavier than air vehicle could not fly. uhh "some" scientists knew the earth was round thousands of years ago and that vehicles heavier than air could fly (since birds and bugs are). Your argument is that we dont know for sure therefore we should keep doing what we're doing. My argument is we dont know for sure therefore we should stop doing what we're doing. The difference is if i'm wrong, the economy is slightly compromised, if you're wrong, we could all die. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluecon Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 uhh "some" scientists knew the earth was round thousands of years ago and that vehicles heavier than air could fly (since birds and bugs are). Your argument is that we dont know for sure therefore we should keep doing what we're doing. My argument is we dont know for sure therefore we should stop doing what we're doing. The difference is if i'm wrong, the economy is slightly compromised, if you're wrong, we could all die. So exactly what is the plan. What do we do? I would like to know how we can fix the weather. So there are people who know how to adjust the earths temperature? And my other question is what will the weather be next Tuesday? That is the hard one because if you predict it we can wait till Tuesday and check the result. How come we are not worried about the next ice age? Why only global warming? I am a lot more worried that the Russians are providing the Iranians with an atomic bomb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.