Jazzy & Other Doubters,
Read this if the spirit moves you: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070103/ap_on_bi_ge/exxonmobil_global_warming
This doesn't prove anything one way or the other. But it certainly does raise questions regarding any information debunking global warming which has been disseminated over the last few years.
Hmm.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Union of Concerned Scientists. Wow, now I am convinced!
I wonder where they stood when we were being warned of the coming ice age in 1970's by all the leading scientists.
Terry, This hoax is driven by anti-american, anti-capitalist, socialists that want to destroy free economies and the prosperity it has brought..... It is agenda driven.
We came out of a little ice age about 150 years ago. It there is any slight warming going on by humans, it is insignificant compared to other causes of carbon dioxide.
If I started listing all of my concerns for mankind in order, I would probably get to humans causing global warming somewhere after 2 or 3 thousand other concerns.
Of course right wing politicos have a superior understanding of all the climatic influences than the scientists who are directly involved with the relevant studies.
Scientists present actual data to prove their case, but since all of them are left wing commies, they likely cooked the books as it were, right?. Of course, you have proof of this?
It is unfortunate that an intelligent person like you has chosen to eschew science in favor of political propaganda and religious fantasy.
Your right wing cronies think anyone to the left of Atilla The Hun is a commie. You've come to the conclusion that all such people hate this country and are part of a conspiracy to destroy it. Again, what proof have you?
Well, I can tell you, no one has attempted to sign me up yet. I'll let you know when they do. Until such an eventuality, I say that your position regarding global warming is baloney.
Of course, no one on the right has any kind of "agenda." All pure as snow. Just good, god fearing Americans.
It must be terribly irritating to you that the GOP no longer has control of Congress. The nation is doomed. The pinko faggots are ready to run rampant. Hide the women and children.
TLS
Terry,
Calm down Terry, convervatives also want to be good stewards of the planet. We are not advocating trillions of dollars being spent on absurd solutions. We are not advocating ruining the economy of the U.S.
We want to remain calm, not go off half-cocked and investigate why scientists of 30 years ago were warning of global cooling. In short we want to be rational. Al Gore was even quoted that it was O.K. to exaggerate the problem to draw attention to it. This means lie to people Terry. That makes me suspicious. I saw first hand how CNN had a special and blamed glaciers receding on automobiles. The National Park service brochure points out that they recededed in Glacier National Park 70 miles from the late 1700's to the 1870's.
Terry, this makes me suspicious when people want to use that as proof that autos caused it.
Yes, I am suspicious of liberals. Again conservatives are not advocating anything. We are suspicious, because we have seen the left lie over and over again.
The earth is either warming or cooling at all times. The sun started burning hotter about 20 years ago. Could that global warming? I am suspicious because I know that to liberals it all depends on 'what is is'
Jazzy,
Just a little extended logic here. We know how badly air pollution has been in large urban areas for literally hundreds of years - certainly since the onset of the industrial revolution. Read Dickens. At certain times the air around London from around the mid 19th century on through the end of WWII became murderously bad owing primarily to the burning of coal in factories, businesses and homes.
Air inversions trapping industrial gases, and yes, auto emissions, have long caused the infamous "smog" in the Los Angeles area.
Since the end of WWII the numbers of petroleum driven vehicles throughout virtually all parts of the world have increased exponentially. Additionally, the introduction of various chemicals into the air - chloro-fluoro carbons, and freon among many others have also ballooned during the same period.
Knowing that the intense burning of coal in urban areas had significant deleterious effects on air quality, why is it such a stretch to believe that the much greater intensity of the gaseous soup that has been unrelentingly emitted into the air for at least the last 60 years and likely more, has and continues to have serious adverse effects the environment?
Are environmental scientists lying about the hole in ozone layer? Are they fibbing about how the relatively unfiltered sun light is seriously harmful to humans among other species? Is the significantly higher occurence of malignant melanoma and other skin cancers incidental?
We haven't even gotten to global warming.
Don't you think that environmental scientists are aware of climatic fluctuations and their effects over the years? Don't you imagine that they have taken this knowledge into account in their calculations? Do you assume that their political agendas supercede their professional integrity? I'm not talking about Al Gore, although I maintain a higher opinion of him than you. I'm talking about the people who are out in the world doing the science.
As to any reversal of claims regarding cooling or warming of the environment - consider this:
We know, for instance that meteorologists can and do make much more detailed and accurate predictions of the weather than they could 30 years ago. Where they used to predict a maximum of 2 or 3 days ahead, they now can make reasonably accurate predictions as much as a week in advance. Sure, they don't always get it right, but they nail it much more often than they don't.
Why? Because they have much more sophisticated equipment at their disposal - including an entire array of highly complex and sensitive weather satellites, computer enhanced weather radars, and other high tech equipment that, frankly I can't even imagine.
The environmental prognosticators of 30 years ago didn't have these tools - at least not to the extent that they have now.
Environmental science is relatively new and very complex. It is, therefore, understandable if they got it wrong 30 years ago - if in fact, they did. They simply know more now. Of course, they could be wrong now. But can we afford to make such an assumption?
You say that conservatives are not advocating anything. But can't you imagine that large corporations, other business interests, and governments working on their behalf, have a vested interest in quelling any substantiation of global warming? Are we to lay down and do nothing in the interest of short run corporate profits? This doesn't seem to be particularly efficacious.
You have stated repeatedly that liberals lie, pretty much all the time about pretty much everything. I don't believe that liberals lie any more (or, likely any less) than conservatives. All have their agendas. Lying is par for the course. When was the last time you heard ANY politician, whether on the right, on the left, or smack dab in the middle, who actually answered a question posed to them?
Politicians, especially those at the national level have taken equivocation to an art.
Liberals are no more dishonest than conservatives. Each will say and do whatever it takes to gain and maintain power, which we all know, corrupts.
TLS
Terry,
Your argument was good. However, you and I are really not experts in this field. The devil is in the details. Such things as who really qualify as experts is important in this discussion.
News and data refuting human causation of global warming comes out all the time from reputable scientists. It does not get mentioned by the MSM so most people do not hear about it. Discounting and ignoring data is not lying but promotes an agenda. My position is not based on scientists lying but rather a belief that only one side is being promoted and given coverage.
Two U.S. senators co-authored a letter to Exxon asking them to stop funding research into global warming because it was causing people to doubt if there was global warming. Government officials trying to intimidate our basic freedoms speaks volumes to me. One was a Republican and the other a democrat.
You are right we have aired this out pretty good. As always best wishes and maybe the Colts will do it this year.
Is it possible that the information regarding the refutation of global warming is coming from scientists who have an agenda of their own? What is the basis and source of their data? Who provided the funds for their research? Could their data be skewed?
Keep in mind that many large corporations have a vested interest in such data. The costs of any "fix" for global warming may, in whole or in significant part fall upon their shoulders. Doubtless, any such costs would ultimately fall to us consumers, which, I suppose, wouldn't be totally unfair in that a great deal of the pollutants were created on our behalf in the manufacture of goods that we use everyday.
If all of the whoop-te-do about global warming is a hoax it's a mighty elaborate one involving a large number of highly regarded scientists, universities, government agencies and like people in dozens of countries all over the world. That's far more elaborate than any supposed cover up of Kennedy's assassination or the hackneyed claims regarding the government's denials of the existence of UFOs.
If what you claim is true, there are a large number of distinguished scientists who have placed their reputations, and perhaps their very careers on the line in the perpetuation of this hoax. Do you suppose that these people place left wing political agendas in higher regard than their careers? Could it be that they are minions of the devil?
TLS
Post a Comment