Mit

[mdn2000]

As opposed the uninformed speculation so common on this board. The scientists are trying to warn you that we don't know just how bad it will be, and that by their best 'informed speculation' the range of possibilities looks like this, low to high. In this case, even the low is far too high.

it seems to me that the models change a lot from year to year, revision to revision, and are always in the first year or two of a hundred year prediction, with the disaster heavily loaded into the future and the current warming always falling short of expected from versions of the past.

it all seems like shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic anyways as the real problem is increased population which needs to use resources to live. why isnt population control one of the publicized solutions to 'climate disruption'? another case of cause being ignored while symptom is fixated on.

I agree

Until we are absolutely 100% positive about global warming ....we should do nothing about it

Then, when it is too late to do anything about it we can blame the liberal scientists.

So what should we do?

 

[rightwinger]

Science is for loser geeks

I only believe what Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck tell me

They both are on in the same time slot, are you a 24/7 member and download Rush's show?

Do you download Glenn Beck's show. Or maybe you watch Glenn Beck and listen to Rush.

Let me know, I do not listen to Glenn Beck, he is too weak.

I like to listen to Mark Levin, if you notice nobody is able to post anything questionable coming from Mark Levin.

You should try Levin, a much better show, very well researched and backed up with facts and sources (as is both Rush and Beck as you know).

Mark Levin

Levin aint no leftist scientist is he?

Did he attend one of them elitist colleges like MIT?

 

[mdn2000]

Hmmm...... Care to have a look at the weather in the last 12 months in Australia? Or China? Say Tennessee? How about Pakistan? Sri Lanka? Russia? And I have left out a few.

Wow, you can name places on a map, can you also find those same names on the map, tell us about that weather in Russia, give us your fine, detailed perspective of Russia's climate.

 

[Ernie S.]

Science is for loser geeks

I only believe what Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck tell me

They both are on in the same time slot, are you a 24/7 member and download Rush's show?

Do you download Glenn Beck's show. Or maybe you watch Glenn Beck and listen to Rush.

Let me know, I do not listen to Glenn Beck, he is too weak.

I like to listen to Mark Levin, if you notice nobody is able to post anything questionable coming from Mark Levin.

You should try Levin, a much better show, very well researched and backed up with facts and sources (as is both Rush and Beck as you know).

Mark Levin

You're getting Beck on tape delay. He's on 9-12 Eastern time and Rush is on 12-3.

 

[IanC]

Hmmm...... Care to have a look at the weather in the last 12 months in Australia? Or China? Say Tennessee? How about Pakistan? Sri Lanka? Russia? And I have left out a few.

weather? there has always been weather and occasionally extreme weather. six years ago people were blaming Katrina on global warming and forcasting increased hurricanes in the future. then there were fewer hurricanes and the alarmists moved on to the next topic of disaster. there is ALWAYS going to be the next natural disaster and the doomsayers will always point to it and say it is proof of global warming, pending ice age or God's displeasure.

you point to Australia but they have always had droughts followed by floods. the recent ones werent even 100 years extremes but you seem to think it supports your case. is there anything that you dont see as a portent of doom? you sound like a witchdoctor not a scientist.

 

[IanC]

As opposed the uninformed speculation so common on this board. The scientists are trying to warn you that we don't know just how bad it will be, and that by their best 'informed speculation' the range of possibilities looks like this, low to high. In this case, even the low is far too high.

it seems to me that the models change a lot from year to year, revision to revision, and are always in the first year or two of a hundred year prediction, with the disaster heavily loaded into the future and the current warming always falling short of expected from versions of the past.

it all seems like shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic anyways as the real problem is increased population which needs to use resources to live. why isnt population control one of the publicized solutions to 'climate disruption'? another case of cause being ignored while symptom is fixated on.

I agree

Until we are absolutely 100% positive about global warming ....we should do nothing about it

Then, when it is too late to do anything about it we can blame the liberal scientists.

I am all for making use of other types of energy but I dont want to run our economy into the ditch for little or no improvement. so far only nuclear power seems to be a stable and reliable source. why arent we making big efforts to develope it? rather than throw money away with wind power. things have to work rather than just sound good.

 

[Trajan]

As opposed the uninformed speculation so common on this board. The scientists are trying to warn you that we don't know just how bad it will be, and that by their best 'informed speculation' the range of possibilities looks like this, low to high. In this case, even the low is far too high.

it seems to me that the models change a lot from year to year, revision to revision, and are always in the first year or two of a hundred year prediction, with the disaster heavily loaded into the future and the current warming always falling short of expected from versions of the past.

it all seems like shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic anyways as the real problem is increased population which needs to use resources to live. why isnt population control one of the publicized solutions to 'climate disruption'? another case of cause being ignored while symptom is fixated on.

because its a religion now, replete with all of the virtues of such; the exclusive 'correct' outlook, dogmatic and inflexible.

 

[rightwinger]

it seems to me that the models change a lot from year to year, revision to revision, and are always in the first year or two of a hundred year prediction, with the disaster heavily loaded into the future and the current warming always falling short of expected from versions of the past.

it all seems like shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic anyways as the real problem is increased population which needs to use resources to live. why isnt population control one of the publicized solutions to 'climate disruption'? another case of cause being ignored while symptom is fixated on.

I agree

Until we are absolutely 100% positive about global warming ....we should do nothing about it

Then, when it is too late to do anything about it we can blame the liberal scientists.

So what should we do?

Reducing carbon output would be a good start. Try it for ten years, if it has no impact on the acceleration of global warming, conservatives can go back to dumping shit into our air

 

[westwall]

As opposed the uninformed speculation so common on this board. The scientists are trying to warn you that we don't know just how bad it will be, and that by their best 'informed speculation' the range of possibilities looks like this, low to high. In this case, even the low is far too high.

it seems to me that the models change a lot from year to year, revision to revision, and are always in the first year or two of a hundred year prediction, with the disaster heavily loaded into the future and the current warming always falling short of expected from versions of the past.

it all seems like shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic anyways as the real problem is increased population which needs to use resources to live. why isnt population control one of the publicized solutions to 'climate disruption'? another case of cause being ignored while symptom is fixated on.

That's because symptom can be used as a cause celebre that a few people can make trillions of dollars on. Simple. Cause and effect, come up with some way for somebody to make bucketloads of cash for producing nothing and unscrupulous people will figure out how to make it happen no matter who it hurts.

 

[westwall]

I agree

Until we are absolutely 100% positive about global warming ....we should do nothing about it

Then, when it is too late to do anything about it we can blame the liberal scientists.

So what should we do?

Reducing carbon output would be a good start. Try it for ten years, if it has no impact on the acceleration of global warming, conservatives can go back to dumping shit into our air

Carbon is natural and an elemental bedrock of life. By their own admissions you can reduce the the CO2 output to 1980 levels at a cost of 400 billion dollars per year for the next 100 years and the effect will be to drop the temperature by 1 degree.....maybe. That is the alarmists OWN numbers. That is their best case scenario.

Do you see why we have a problem with that? Do you now understand why the expenditure of trillions for a possible one degree drop is ridiculous? Instead, take those trillions and invest it in high technology that actually WILL have an impact on peoples lives and reduce pollution.

Take those trillions and end the Third World through education and advancement instead of Ed Begley and the rest of the elitists wanting to condemn them to an eternal life of poverty and disease. End the Third World and most of the population problem that exists will vanish.

 

[westwall]

Hmmm...... Care to have a look at the weather in the last 12 months in Australia? Or China? Say Tennessee? How about Pakistan? Sri Lanka? Russia? And I have left out a few.

Hmmm, go back and look at all those places weather for the last 300 years...guess what it all looks the SAME! Change the year to whatever you like and the same disasters happen over and over and over and over again. Same disasters, same places different years for hundreds of years that we have the records for.

This is nothing new no matter how much you myopic bats try to make it so.

 

[rightwinger]

it seems to me that the models change a lot from year to year, revision to revision, and are always in the first year or two of a hundred year prediction, with the disaster heavily loaded into the future and the current warming always falling short of expected from versions of the past.

it all seems like shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic anyways as the real problem is increased population which needs to use resources to live. why isnt population control one of the publicized solutions to 'climate disruption'? another case of cause being ignored while symptom is fixated on.

I agree

Until we are absolutely 100% positive about global warming ....we should do nothing about it

Then, when it is too late to do anything about it we can blame the liberal scientists.

I am all for making use of other types of energy but I dont want to run our economy into the ditch for little or no improvement. so far only nuclear power seems to be a stable and reliable source. why arent we making big efforts to develope it? rather than throw money away with wind power. things have to work rather than just sound good.

We should have made the move thirty years ago

There is no time like the present