The Politics of Global Warming

[SwimExpert]

I really want to believe in global warming BUT I have a problem.
1) If global warming is happening NOW... why is there large oil deposits in the Arctic as it takes warm weather to grow plants that decompose to oil.
2) If global warming is happening why has 12.5% of the earth's land mass never been included in the land temperature reading stations for over 60 years?
3) If the temperatures are increasing why did NOAA remove 600 reading stations due to false readings?
4) If before digital thermometers people had to distinguish between 78° and 79° and then physically write the temperatures down which again were transcribed several
more times....all susceptible to human errors. Again before digital/satellites but these accumulated readings since 1880s is the basis for saying temperature is rising!

Answer me those questions that reflect on the realities i.e. decaying plant life transformed into oil is found in the Arctic how come?

One is completely nonsensical blather. Two is, at best, marginally relevant. The remaining two are very good points.

 

[Penelope]

Thankfully there are people who realize what industrialization has done to the AIR, WATER and EARTH

By the way, you're using a computer.

Yes I shop on it an save gas. We need to convert to clean energy, and quit being wasteful and polluting everything. Garbage dumps are overflowing. We are very wasteful.

 

[PoliticalChic]

3. Some science-history:
Some ground-floor geneticists claimed that characteristics acquired during an organism's lifetime were incorporated in their offspring.

a. Jean Baptiste Lamarck took a great conceptual step and proposed a full-blown theory of evolution, believing that the long necks of giraffes evolved as generations of giraffes reached for ever higher leaves. As each generation's neck increased in length, that trait served as a starting point for successive generation, and so on. Early Concepts of Evolution Jean Baptiste Lamarck

4. Friedrich Weismann disproved this thesis, operating from the other end: he cut the tails off multiple generations of mice, and showed that the result was not shorter tails in the subjects.
Leave it to a German to operate on helpless victims.

What the heck does this have to do with anything?

Anyway, even if you put the temperatures aside there's still plenty of evidence that the Earth is changing due to human activity. Killer Whales hunting in further and further northern regions displacing polar bears. Deciduous trees spreading further north. Fish migrations changing. Droughts, floods, intensity of hurricanes, greater storm surge.

The world is actually turning into a scary place. I personally don't think it's a good idea to ignore all of it.

Imagine what a threat you'd be if you actually had an education.

You might even reduce your hand-wringing, Chicken Little.

For edification:

In the 1860s, News England fishermen where aghast at the 'crisis' caused by net fisherman. The US Fish Commission concluded that netters were going to wipe out entire species of fish! The uproar caused Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island to institute regulations.

"“It’s interesting to see the quotes of the [historical] fishermen,” he says, but he cautions that the evidence is “very anecdotal”. Hiddink also highlights a different modern parallel: the nineteenth-century fishermen who used lines or pots blamed declining catches on those who trawled. “What is typical is the situation where the fishermen are all blaming each other.”
Fishermen Report on Catches from Beyond the Grave - Scientific American



"Despite the fact that the netting continued, the species came back in abundance. The protests had begun during a natural crash in fish populations. They faded out with the new population boom."
Kaufman, Op. Cit., chapter seven.


Dopes like you are exactly what the global warming con artists count on.

I have no idea why fish populations came into this...Let alone issues that arose in the 1860's. Either way if you want to go there I think bottom trawling is a horrible and destructive practice and should be done away with if possible without disrupting food supplies too much.

I don't see the last quote anywhere in the article you linked and have no clue what it's referencing.

I think dopes like you are the people big fossil fuel companies rely on.

edit: Here's a quote from your article:

“I think the message from the nineteenth century is that even low intensities of bottom trawling can very quickly alter seabed communities beyond recognition, and that fish abundance was being impacted even during the early days of industrialized fishing,” she says. “This heralds a stark warning for our fisheries today, particularly those which are expanding their efforts further offshore and to greater depths, as deep-sea communities are simply not able to recover rapidly from disturbances.”

".... big fossil fuel companies..."

Let's see....

Big fossil fuel companies are both literally and figuratively the grease of the capitalist engine.

They allow us to get to work, and to warm our homes.

They pay your taxes, and increase the standard of living for the middle classs, as they appear in just about every stock portfolio, especially those of labor unions.


And they are owned by average citizens.


So....what's your beef, beyond the fact that you are as dumb as asphalt?

 

[SwimExpert]

Thankfully there are people who realize what industrialization has done to the AIR, WATER and EARTH

By the way, you're using a computer.

Yes I shop on it an save gas. We need to convert to clean energy, and quit being wasteful and polluting everything. Garbage dumps are overflowing. We are very wasteful.

So let me get this straight....you own a computer, which was brought to you via industrialization. You use it to shop online for things brought to you through industrialization. Meanwhile, you are needlessly being wasteful by posting on this board, consuming unnecessary fossil fuel powered energy.

Did I miss anything here?

 

[orogenicman]

The politicization of the climate change issue is fueled more by the right, through corporate anti-environmentalist interests, motivated by profit,

than by anyone else.

Evidence?

SourceWatch

 

[PoliticalChic]

Thankfully there are people who realize what industrialization has done to the AIR, WATER and EARTH

By the way, you're using a computer.

Yes I shop on it an save gas. We need to convert to clean energy, and quit being wasteful and polluting everything. Garbage dumps are overflowing. We are very wasteful.

When it comes to the dumbest individuals on the planet, you take second place to no one!


1. Our future is in ‘green energy’? “Presidents all the way back to Richard Nixon -- whose "Project Independence" promised to make America independent from foreign oil by 1980 -- were thwarted by short attention spans, other urgent problems and gyrations in the energy market.” After some 30 years and billions of dollars poured into alternative technologies, renewable energy now accounts for a mere 6.7% of our total.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122894725018995935.html


Based on US Department of Energy, sources of energy used in the US:

39.2% petroleum, 23.3% natural gas, 22.4% coal, 8.3% nuclear, 3.6% biomass, 2.4% hydroelectric, 0.35% geothermal, 0.31% wind, 0.08% solar.
Raleigh SEO - Patrick Stox


2. "Garbage dumps are overflowing."
"...recycling frequently costs more than it saves...the use of reusable cloth diapers may save trees, but it also wastes energy through both production and repeated washings...requiring lots of water and detergents. ...sewage plants [must increase] chemical use. Recycling paper also saves trees, but the chemicals necessary to remove ink and stains create more pollutants than the chemicals used to process new wood."
Kaufman, "No Turning Back," p. 85-86

a. How about the threat that we are running out of landfill?"...we are making so much garbage that in many places there is not enough room to bury it all.""50 Simple Things Kids Can Do to Save the Earth," byEarthWorks Group andSophie Javna" "

b.When will the United States run out of landfill space? Not for centuries."
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/the_green_lantern/2011/02/go_west_garbage_can.html

 

[BluesLegend]

I find it suspicious the left's 'solution' to global warming is carbon taxes on the poor and middle class. Why are any tax increases required when you could accomplish change with regulations. I suspect the real goal of the left with this global warming crap is acquiring a perpetual several hundred billion dollar slush fund.

Any carbon tax would inevitably effect big polluters more than the poor and middle class. The idea behind it would be to create an incentive to switch over to more green technologies rather then keep using polluting methods like coal burning or deforestation.

Unable to persuade people to support their policies the left resorts to punishing people financially to force their compliance, got it. Anymore it seems like the left are the new Nazi's.

 

[SwimExpert]

The politicization of the climate change issue is fueled more by the right, through corporate anti-environmentalist interests, motivated by profit,

than by anyone else.

Evidence?

SourceWatch

...






You could have posted a picture of your penis and had a more credible, more relevant source.

 

[orogenicman]

The politicization of the climate change issue is fueled more by the right, through corporate anti-environmentalist interests, motivated by profit,

than by anyone else.

Evidence?

SourceWatch

...






You could have posted a picture of your penis and had a more credible, more relevant source.

And by making your response personal, you lost any credibility you may have thought you had.

 

[SwimExpert]

And by making your response personal, you lost any credibility you may have thought you had.

Except that I didn't make it personal, I made it about the veracity of your source.

 

[Nyvin]

3. Some science-history:
Some ground-floor geneticists claimed that characteristics acquired during an organism's lifetime were incorporated in their offspring.

a. Jean Baptiste Lamarck took a great conceptual step and proposed a full-blown theory of evolution, believing that the long necks of giraffes evolved as generations of giraffes reached for ever higher leaves. As each generation's neck increased in length, that trait served as a starting point for successive generation, and so on. Early Concepts of Evolution Jean Baptiste Lamarck

4. Friedrich Weismann disproved this thesis, operating from the other end: he cut the tails off multiple generations of mice, and showed that the result was not shorter tails in the subjects.
Leave it to a German to operate on helpless victims.

What the heck does this have to do with anything?

Anyway, even if you put the temperatures aside there's still plenty of evidence that the Earth is changing due to human activity. Killer Whales hunting in further and further northern regions displacing polar bears. Deciduous trees spreading further north. Fish migrations changing. Droughts, floods, intensity of hurricanes, greater storm surge.

The world is actually turning into a scary place. I personally don't think it's a good idea to ignore all of it.

Imagine what a threat you'd be if you actually had an education.

You might even reduce your hand-wringing, Chicken Little.

For edification:

In the 1860s, News England fishermen where aghast at the 'crisis' caused by net fisherman. The US Fish Commission concluded that netters were going to wipe out entire species of fish! The uproar caused Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island to institute regulations.

"“It’s interesting to see the quotes of the [historical] fishermen,” he says, but he cautions that the evidence is “very anecdotal”. Hiddink also highlights a different modern parallel: the nineteenth-century fishermen who used lines or pots blamed declining catches on those who trawled. “What is typical is the situation where the fishermen are all blaming each other.”
Fishermen Report on Catches from Beyond the Grave - Scientific American



"Despite the fact that the netting continued, the species came back in abundance. The protests had begun during a natural crash in fish populations. They faded out with the new population boom."
Kaufman, Op. Cit., chapter seven.


Dopes like you are exactly what the global warming con artists count on.

I have no idea why fish populations came into this...Let alone issues that arose in the 1860's. Either way if you want to go there I think bottom trawling is a horrible and destructive practice and should be done away with if possible without disrupting food supplies too much.

I don't see the last quote anywhere in the article you linked and have no clue what it's referencing.

I think dopes like you are the people big fossil fuel companies rely on.

edit: Here's a quote from your article:

“I think the message from the nineteenth century is that even low intensities of bottom trawling can very quickly alter seabed communities beyond recognition, and that fish abundance was being impacted even during the early days of industrialized fishing,” she says. “This heralds a stark warning for our fisheries today, particularly those which are expanding their efforts further offshore and to greater depths, as deep-sea communities are simply not able to recover rapidly from disturbances.”

".... big fossil fuel companies..."

Let's see....

Big fossil fuel companies are both literally and figuratively the grease of the capitalist engine.

They allow us to get to work, and to warm our homes.

They pay your taxes, and increase the standard of living for the middle classs, as they appear in just about every stock portfolio, especially those of labor unions.


And they are owned by average citizens.


So....what's your beef, beyond the fact that you are as dumb as asphalt?

I think I've been called "dumb as asphalt" at least 4 to 5 times by you now. Is that a catch phrase you use often?

Anyway, they are anything but owned by "average citizens" lol, that's just funny. They're big, global, corporate conglomerates that have vested interests in getting businesses, people, and governments to buy as much of their product as possible, and if that means shutting down green alternatives and removing any safety or environmental rules or regulations then believe me they'll go there.

Of course they're a central part of capitalism, fossil fuels are the bedrock of industrialized society, that doesn't mean we let them rule over us without any question. We let Standard Oil do that back in the day and look how that turned out? They came damn close to buying our entire government.

 

[PoliticalChic]

2. Those of us more astute have long identified the global warming scam as Marxism's latest attempt to institute global governance. In fact, a study of the nexus of science and politics have seen the attempt before....and today's exposition will review that earlier endeavor.....and its failure.

And this is why you're a stupid ****. Global warming is just really, really bad science. Saying stupid shit like the above puts you on the level of Paulitician. Maybe even the level of Rdean and Franco.

Time for your next lesson.


Lysenko was dead wrong, scientifically....but his work was advanced because it served a political purpose.

The same with Global Warming.


9. " Under Lysenko’s view, for example, grafting branches of one plant species onto another could create new plant hybrids that would be perpetuated by the descendants of the grafted plant. Or modifications made to seeds would be inherited by later generations stemming from that seed. Or that plucking all the leaves off of a plant would cause descendants of the plant to be leafless."
Forbes, Op. Cit.


See the confluence with LaMarck's idea of giraffe's necks? Of course, LaMarck was late 18th century, Lysenko was mid 20th.
And Weismann did his work disproving LaMarck late 19th century.

So...why was LaMarck so popular with Stalin's totalitarian government?




And what does this have to do with contemporary America?

It is a well-known fact that all one need do to mobilize Liberals is to say "....studies show...."

10. For progressives and liberals, "science" " was the vision of the anointed as surrogate decision- makers....[including] an expanded role for government and an expanded role for judges to re-interpret the Constitution so as to loosen the restrictions on the powers of government." To Dr. Thomas Sowell, writing in "Intellectuals and Race," intellectuals, opinion-makers, are dangerous because they decide on their conclusions, and then impose same on the populace.
Sowell, "Intellectuals and Race," p. 26.
Many accept 'expert' opinion without questioning the underpinnings.....especially Liberals.
Global warming, case in point.

Stalin latched on to Lysenko's view because it re-enforced Karl Marx's view of history.



a. So....where did our Progressive's "science" take us? Eugenics, the attempts to prevent the breeding by the wrong kind of people, "the multiplication of the unfit, the production of a horde of unwanted souls."
From "The Control of Births," The New Republic, March 6, 1915.

 

[SwimExpert]

*yawn*

I think I need to put Politicunt on ignore....

 

[Nyvin]

Politichic is kinda like Sarah Palin giving a speech...she jumps from one thing to another with no relation between the two and never really using complete thoughts to communicate what she's trying to say to her audience.

I wonder if we could ever get her to read one of her thread post on youtube and explain it......

 

[PoliticalChic]

3. Some science-history:
Some ground-floor geneticists claimed that characteristics acquired during an organism's lifetime were incorporated in their offspring.

a. Jean Baptiste Lamarck took a great conceptual step and proposed a full-blown theory of evolution, believing that the long necks of giraffes evolved as generations of giraffes reached for ever higher leaves. As each generation's neck increased in length, that trait served as a starting point for successive generation, and so on. Early Concepts of Evolution Jean Baptiste Lamarck

4. Friedrich Weismann disproved this thesis, operating from the other end: he cut the tails off multiple generations of mice, and showed that the result was not shorter tails in the subjects.
Leave it to a German to operate on helpless victims.

What the heck does this have to do with anything?

Anyway, even if you put the temperatures aside there's still plenty of evidence that the Earth is changing due to human activity. Killer Whales hunting in further and further northern regions displacing polar bears. Deciduous trees spreading further north. Fish migrations changing. Droughts, floods, intensity of hurricanes, greater storm surge.

The world is actually turning into a scary place. I personally don't think it's a good idea to ignore all of it.

Imagine what a threat you'd be if you actually had an education.

You might even reduce your hand-wringing, Chicken Little.

For edification:

In the 1860s, News England fishermen where aghast at the 'crisis' caused by net fisherman. The US Fish Commission concluded that netters were going to wipe out entire species of fish! The uproar caused Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island to institute regulations.

"“It’s interesting to see the quotes of the [historical] fishermen,” he says, but he cautions that the evidence is “very anecdotal”. Hiddink also highlights a different modern parallel: the nineteenth-century fishermen who used lines or pots blamed declining catches on those who trawled. “What is typical is the situation where the fishermen are all blaming each other.”
Fishermen Report on Catches from Beyond the Grave - Scientific American



"Despite the fact that the netting continued, the species came back in abundance. The protests had begun during a natural crash in fish populations. They faded out with the new population boom."
Kaufman, Op. Cit., chapter seven.


Dopes like you are exactly what the global warming con artists count on.

I have no idea why fish populations came into this...Let alone issues that arose in the 1860's. Either way if you want to go there I think bottom trawling is a horrible and destructive practice and should be done away with if possible without disrupting food supplies too much.

I don't see the last quote anywhere in the article you linked and have no clue what it's referencing.

I think dopes like you are the people big fossil fuel companies rely on.

edit: Here's a quote from your article:

“I think the message from the nineteenth century is that even low intensities of bottom trawling can very quickly alter seabed communities beyond recognition, and that fish abundance was being impacted even during the early days of industrialized fishing,” she says. “This heralds a stark warning for our fisheries today, particularly those which are expanding their efforts further offshore and to greater depths, as deep-sea communities are simply not able to recover rapidly from disturbances.”

".... big fossil fuel companies..."

Let's see....

Big fossil fuel companies are both literally and figuratively the grease of the capitalist engine.

They allow us to get to work, and to warm our homes.

They pay your taxes, and increase the standard of living for the middle classs, as they appear in just about every stock portfolio, especially those of labor unions.


And they are owned by average citizens.


So....what's your beef, beyond the fact that you are as dumb as asphalt?

I think I've been called "dumb as asphalt" at least 4 to 5 times by you now. Is that a catch phrase you use often?

Anyway, they are anything but owned by "average citizens" lol, that's just funny. They're big, global, corporate conglomerates that have vested interests in getting businesses, people, and governments to buy as much of their product as possible, and if that means shutting down green alternatives and removing any safety or environmental rules or regulations then believe me they'll go there.

Of course they're a central part of capitalism, fossil fuels are the bedrock of industrialized society, that doesn't mean we let them rule over us without any question. We let Standard Oil do that back in the day and look how that turned out? They came damn close to buying our entire government.

1. "I think I've been called "dumb as asphalt" at least 4 to 5 times by you now. Is that a catch phrase you use often?"
Wear it well....you've earned it.


2. "...Anyway, they are anything but owned by "average citizens"..."
This is exactly how you've earned the appellation.
“Exxon Mobil, in fact, is owned mostly by ordinary Americans. Mutual funds, index funds and pension funds (including union pension funds) own about 52 percent of Exxon Mobil’s shares. Individual shareholders, about two million or so, own almost all the rest. The pooh-bahs who run Exxon own less than 1 percent of the company.” http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/business/02every.html

Did I just rip you a new one, or what????


3. "...if that means shutting down green alternatives and removing any safety or environmental rules or regulations then believe me they'll go there."
I ain't finished with ya' yet, asphalt.


The fraud is from the global warmist side......

"Gleick or one of his coconspirators felt compelled to go farther and composed a fake memo titled “Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy.”

a. “MAY 1, 2012 – The Heartland Institute today released more evidence that Pacific Institute President Peter Gleick was the likely author of a fake “climate strategy memo” that Gleick originally claimed came from a “Heartland insider,” and later said he received “in the mail” from an anonymous source.”
New Evidence Released in Fakegate Global Warming Scandal Heartland Institute

b. The scanned document itself, however, contained evidence that allowed even amateur sleuths to trace it back to the Pacific Institute’s offices, as explained in an article by Megan McCardle, a senior editor for The Atlantic.

c. “On February 21, 2012 — one day after Gleick admitted his guilt — the AGU announced it accepted Gleick’s resignation from … er … the organization’s Task Force on Scientific Ethics. Gleick “acted in a way that is inconsistent with our organization’s values,” the AGU stated,…”
American Geophysical Union Welcomes Back Disgraced Peter Gleick Gives Him Speaking Slot FakeGate

d. The forged cover memo, …contains language mirroring Climategate. It discussed fabricated projects … and references a $200,000 Koch Foundation contribution for climate change activities that doesn’t exist. … the budget last year for the Natural Resources Defense Council was $95.4 million, and for the World Wildlife Fund $238.5 million.” Fakegate The Obnoxious Fabrication of Global Warming - Forbes


Amazing how easily you fall for every tale from the Left....you must be 'a reliable Democrat voter.'



3. "capitalism, fossil fuels are the bedrock of industrialized society, that doesn't mean we let them rule over us..."

"But by the early 20th century, it was clear that this assumption was completely wrong! Under capitalism, the standard of living of all was improving: prices falling, incomes rising, health and sanitation improving, lengthening of life spans, diets becoming more varied, the new jobs created in industry paid more than most could make in agriculture, housing improved, and middle class industrialists and business owners displaced nobility and gentry as heroes."
From a speech by Rev. Robert A. Sirico, President, Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty.
Delivered at Hillsdale College, October 27, 2006

 

[PoliticalChic]

*yawn*

I think I need to put Politicunt on ignore....

Watch your language....You're not home talking to your family.

 

[orogenicman]

And by making your response personal, you lost any credibility you may have thought you had.

Except that I didn't make it personal, I made it about the veracity of your source.

Obfuscating is not going to help you make whatever point you thought you were making, particularly when you made no point, and certainly didn't support your claim with anything resembling evidence. You asked for evidence. I provided a link to lots of evidence. It was obvious that you didn't even bother to browse the site, otherwise you would have made an attempt to prove your point by debunking just one item listed there. You didn't do that. You simply made a biased assessment based on your own political beliefs. And by the way, my penis has nothing to do with it. Does yours?

 

[SwimExpert]

And by making your response personal, you lost any credibility you may have thought you had.

Except that I didn't make it personal, I made it about the veracity of your source.

Obfuscating is not going to help you make whatever point you thought you were making, particularly when you made no point, and certainly didn't support your claim with anything resembling evidence. You asked for evidence. I provided a link to lots of evidence. It was obvious that you didn't even bother to browse the site, otherwise you would have made an attempt to prove your point by debunking just one item listed there. You didn't do that. You simply made a biased assessment based on your own political beliefs. And by the way, my penis has nothing to do with it. Does yours?

Translation: You got nothing, except a worthless link from source less reliable than your penis.

 

[orogenicman]

And by making your response personal, you lost any credibility you may have thought you had.

Except that I didn't make it personal, I made it about the veracity of your source.

Obfuscating is not going to help you make whatever point you thought you were making, particularly when you made no point, and certainly didn't support your claim with anything resembling evidence. You asked for evidence. I provided a link to lots of evidence. It was obvious that you didn't even bother to browse the site, otherwise you would have made an attempt to prove your point by debunking just one item listed there. You didn't do that. You simply made a biased assessment based on your own political beliefs. And by the way, my penis has nothing to do with it. Does yours?

Translation: You got nothing, except a worthless link from source less reliable than your penis.

For the record, each time you do what you are doing here, I am reporting you to the moderators for violating the rules. I suggest you learn how to converse reasonably and refrain from your sophomoric antics.

 

[SwimExpert]

And by making your response personal, you lost any credibility you may have thought you had.

Except that I didn't make it personal, I made it about the veracity of your source.

Obfuscating is not going to help you make whatever point you thought you were making, particularly when you made no point, and certainly didn't support your claim with anything resembling evidence. You asked for evidence. I provided a link to lots of evidence. It was obvious that you didn't even bother to browse the site, otherwise you would have made an attempt to prove your point by debunking just one item listed there. You didn't do that. You simply made a biased assessment based on your own political beliefs. And by the way, my penis has nothing to do with it. Does yours?

Translation: You got nothing, except a worthless link from source less reliable than your penis.

For the record, each time you do what you are doing here, I am reporting you to the moderators for violating the rules. I suggest you learn how to converse reasonably and refrain from your sophomoric antics.

Translation: You still have nothing. You failed to provide a source that has any more reliability on the matter than your own penis. So you now will try to distract from the fact by crying and whining, and making personal insults. Despite these failed efforts, you continue to have....













Nothing.