Things that would force you to switch to the otherside

[ScienceRocks]

What would get you to change your mind on the pro global warming or skeptic debate?

Me---

1# If someone like Hansen, ect came here and wirebender kicked the shit out of him and made him outright withdraw from the board through not being able to defend his own theory of co2 caused global warming.

2# 5 straight years of cooling global temperatures---Yes because global warming is a longer term decal like thing, but if it started to cool global not just within nina years, but normal neutral like years---I'd admit it is a crock and co2 doesn't=warming. Or wondering wtf is going on.

3# 5 years of increase of sea ice volume. Arctic. There is a pretty good theory explaining why the Antarctic could gain a great amount of sea ice through the fact the winds that swirl around that place keeps it colder then a steal shit house on Christmas day.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The other side meaning Chris, Old Rock, the Decline Hiders and Warmers? Nothing. I'd have to be without the capacity for thought to believe mankind has been melting the ice the past 14,000 years

 

[ScienceRocks]

The other side meaning Chris, Old Rock, the Decline Hiders and Warmers? Nothing. I'd have to be without the capacity for thought to believe mankind has been melting the ice the past 14,000 years

Even if Hansen came here and shown you how co2 works and how it causes the warming? Even if each year started to warm .1c/year and we could prove it without a doubt? You still wouldn't.

 

[Mr. H.]

A crystal ball would help.

That's a good question you pose there. I'm on the fence and will probably remain so. It's a helpless and hapless scenario with hydrocarbons fully entrenched in our lives well into the foreseeable future.

Nothing could or would "force" my opinion either way. However, I do believe that an effort to grow non-hydrocarbon energy sources worldwide is a positive development toward stemming particulate emissions.

But (and that's a big butt) the development of such should be done based on markets and not legislative caveat.

 

[CitizenPained]

I believe in global warming, but if it were proven to be false, I wouldn't change my habits.

There's just nothing good that comes out of trashing the earth and destroying ecosystems.

 

[Mr. H.]

I believe in global warming, but if it were proven to be false, I wouldn't change my habits.

There's just nothing good that comes out of trashing the earth and destroying ecosystems.

Unless you're a plant, you should die for your sins.

 

[wirebender]

1# If someone like Hansen, ect came here and wirebender kicked the shit out of him and made him outright withdraw from the board through not being able to defend his own theory of co2 caused global warming.

I can't help but wonder why this crusade for me to debate the big corruptors. They won't debate with the PhDs in physics, chemistry, astrophysics, and geology that state, without reservation, that their AGW and greenhouse effect hypotheses are wrong. What might be gained by coming here and dumping reams upon reams of doubletalk and assumption on this board? They won't get down to basic science because they know that it is there that they fail.

There is nothing, absolutely nothing to be gained by coming here. If they win, they kicked around a nobody. If they lose, or even tie, or clearly avoid the basic science and give the appearance of dodging, this sort of thing tends to get around on the internet and it couldn't look good.

Besides Matthew, I am not interested in talking to those guys. If they were to come here, I believe I could get a couple of PhD physicists who have the laws of physics and mathematical formulae running through their veins to proxy for me. Hell Matthew, I could probably put an ad out on the internet and get PhDs in various fields to pay me to give them an opportunity to shred any of the anointed clique in public; even in such an obscure location as this. Don't count on any of the biggies showing up here. Nothing to gain and a lot to lose.

 

[wirebender]

I do believe that an effort to grow non-hydrocarbon energy sources worldwide is a positive development toward stemming particulate emissions.

Really? Even when the non hydrocarbon alternatives are, in many ways, worse than what we are using? Wind is decimating the raptor populations wherever they are built, not to mention bats and miagratory birds. Solar shades and desbroys the habit for square miles. Electric cars require batteries that are manufactured in some of the most toxic places on earth and leave toxic waste to be disposed of in the form of batteries when they finish ther very short and expensive life spans.

I can't think of a single "alternative" that is better in the long run than what we are using now.

 

[CitizenPained]

How about...

Oil and its detrimental effect on foreign relations?

 

[wirebender]

How about...

Oil and its detrimental effect on foreign relations?

I would rather see the relational problems than see eagles, hawks, falcons, vultures, and buzzards killed in their tens of thousands.

 

[Momanohedhunter]

A crystal ball would help.

That's a good question you pose there. I'm on the fence and will probably remain so. It's a helpless and hapless scenario with hydrocarbons fully entrenched in our lives well into the foreseeable future.

Nothing could or would "force" my opinion either way. However, I do believe that an effort to grow non-hydrocarbon energy sources worldwide is a positive development toward stemming particulate emissions.

But (and that's a big butt) the development of such should be done based on markets and not legislative caveat.

Crystal ball is bull shit and you know it. Everyone knows chicken bones are more accurate.

 

[Momanohedhunter]

How about...

Oil and its detrimental effect on foreign relations?

Rep coming.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Brain transplant.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The other side meaning Chris, Old Rock, the Decline Hiders and Warmers? Nothing. I'd have to be without the capacity for thought to believe mankind has been melting the ice the past 14,000 years

Even if Hansen came here and shown you how co2 works and how it causes the warming? Even if each year started to warm .1c/year and we could prove it without a doubt? You still wouldn't.

The ice has been melting for a long time. If my house wasn't under a mile of ice a relatively short time ago, I'd pay closer attention to how mankind is melting the ice caps.

 

[skookerasbil]

What would get you to change your mind on the pro global warming or skeptic debate?

Me---

1# If someone like Hansen, ect came here and wirebender kicked the shit out of him and made him outright withdraw from the board through not being able to defend his own theory of co2 caused global warming.

2# 5 straight years of cooling global temperatures---Yes because global warming is a longer term decal like thing, but if it started to cool global not just within nina years, but normal neutral like years---I'd admit it is a crock and co2 doesn't=warming. Or wondering wtf is going on.

3# 5 years of increase of sea ice volume. Arctic. There is a pretty good theory explaining why the Antarctic could gain a great amount of sea ice through the fact the winds that swirl around that place keeps it colder then a steal shit house on Christmas day.

You dont get it s0n........the point is moot. The debate might continue for people who do those things, but in terms of the slug-like creep of evidence, public policy is NOT going to change on this shit. And thats all that matters in the big picture to me. All this temperature/ice debate is going to become nothing more than a hobby on the internet.........its quite that simple. Ive always been amazed that those on the far left somehow lived for decades and by some miracle, never got the memo that in the end, life comes down to money and the world follows suit.


People said "meh" when the UN came out last week with a figure of 76 trillion "for the world to go green.". Thats waving the white flag s0ns..........wont stop the k00k lobbying efforts but from now on, it'll only be about throwing occasional bones to the environmentalists just to shut them up. Go google "2011 + environmental legislation" and see what comes up.........and its not going to change for a minimum of 6 years and by most accounts, closer to 10 years due to a huge surplus of red governorships. And there are enough corporate entities out there to perpetuate the illusion, but they are simply the real smart players who are like vultures waiting to feast on the deluded and make huge-ass profits. Like General Electric and a few others. There will always be a market out there for the renewable energy crap, but it's a fringe market only...........as it should be. Its the antithesis of big oil only much smaller. Theres always a market out there for most anything if you have enough suckers out there to make it profitable.


Indeed..........its been Christmas Day for conservative minded people for at least the past two years..........with the news getting better and better almost by the day. And once the next 18 months go by and we can get this fraud out of the White House, things will get even better.

 

[sparky]

One would think 7 billion people industrializing themselves exponentially in the last century might put a dent in the enviroment, we're not short of examples

Those that are insisting such problems can't be intricatley quantified, qualified, and parsed out to their liking merely cloak the underlying blame game , and sadly, any pollution solution

we're a dirty little race, accept it

~S~

 

[skookerasbil]

One would think 7 billion people industrializing themselves exponentially in the last century might put a dent in the enviroment, we're not short of examples

Those that are insisting such problems can't be intricatley quantified, qualified, and parsed out to their liking merely cloak the underlying blame game , and sadly, any pollution solution

we're a dirty little race, accept it

~S~

and most people realize that s0n.............and frankly, dont give a rats ass!!!!!


ftmfw

 

[IanC]

Matt- when you say the 'other side', what do you mean? are we talking science or politics?

the politics is a non starter. only western nations are even considering reducing their industry in the name of global warming, the rest of the world is sitting on the sidelines waiting for the crazy white westerners to give them money.

perhaps you are talking about the science. few people deny that CO2 production has some effect on the climate. few people deny that there has been some warming.

or are you talking about the catastrophic predictions? a rock from space could take out the planet. should we spend 20% of the GDP to deploy a defensive system that wont work there either?

there are huge problems that we face. the american multi trillion dollar debt is one that will affect the world in very bad ways unless something is done about it. I vote we deal with real, pressing matters that can actually be ameliorated by man and leave nature to run the planet.

but I still like thinking and reading about global warming. its better than a sudoku anytime.

 

[Yoda]

I'm confused as well. I don't like being "Forced" into any viewpoint. Please elaborate on what your viewpoint is and I'll decide if I share your view or not.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Matt- when you say the 'other side', what do you mean? are we talking science or politics?

the politics is a non starter. only western nations are even considering reducing their industry in the name of global warming, the rest of the world is sitting on the sidelines waiting for the crazy white westerners to give them money.

perhaps you are talking about the science. few people deny that CO2 production has some effect on the climate. few people deny that there has been some warming.

or are you talking about the catastrophic predictions? a rock from space could take out the planet. should we spend 20% of the GDP to deploy a defensive system that wont work there either?

there are huge problems that we face. the american multi trillion dollar debt is one that will affect the world in very bad ways unless something is done about it. I vote we deal with real, pressing matters that can actually be ameliorated by man and leave nature to run the planet.

but I still like thinking and reading about global warming. its better than a sudoku anytime.

I'm talking purely science.