Forums | MacLife

I am just so original!

[MA] Flying_Meat wrote:

resedit wrote:

You are making excuses.

you are failing to use objectivity.

Are you sure the kettle is black?

matt wrote:

You are truly a master of "Attack the man, not the message."

Ok, attack the message:
The global warming scare is fear mongering, pure and simple. There is not enough  evidence to claim that the current climate is the ideal climate. Detailed records only go back a couple centuries, maybe? To say that a slight rise in temp over a century is not normal, that's just short sighted. There is far, FAR more evidence that rising ocean temps are related to solar activity. Even IF man were contributing, the impact is tiny. We will not melt the icecaps, or flood New York, or any of the other doomsday messages put out by Gore and others.
It's fashionable to say that you're studying global warming. Probably got more than one grad student laid. Truth is, it's also profitable. If you want to study global warming there are any number of groups will bury you in cash. If you say "I theorize that man has nothing to do with global warming and that there's nothing we can do about it but prepare", you're left out in the cold (so to speak).
So as I see it, Gore either knows it's bull, but has too good of a thing going, or is oblivious to the real science and wants everyone but himself to change their lifestyle. Still a hypocrite.

jdbaum wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

Someone want to link to the thousand dollar gas bill?

http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/art … cle_id=367

Hm... used a lot of energy. The source of that energy is...?

Expensive gas bill. Before or after the zoning code changed? What  is the cost of energy in that area?

Oh, I guess it's just a "non-partisan" article by a group that "promotes the free market."

And the bit about the warming being caused by increased solar activity is a pack of BS. NONE of the talks I have listened to, by smart people with real degrees, mentioned increased solar activity as a possible alternate cause to global warming than CO2.

In fact, one of the lectures mentioned using a reduction of sunlight absorbed by the earth via stratospheric aerosol scattering, as well as a reduction in CO2 emissions to best minimize the effects of global warming.

matt wrote:

Even if a warmer temperature is not a bad thing(a point which I will definitely not concede), are increasing energy efficiency, moving toward cheap, renewable energy, reducing air pollution and stopping the flow of money to countries like Saudi Arabia bad things?

Or do you just hate Al Gore?

Of course those are all things to strive for. I just hate the doomsday approach and the hypocrisy. I'd rather have market driven solutions. When an electric car runs better and cheaper than gas, I'll be in line to buy one.  I don't want the government, bullied by the likes of Gore, legislating how eco friendly I am.

jdbaum wrote:

matt wrote:

Even if a warmer temperature is not a bad thing(a point which I will definitely not concede), are increasing energy efficiency, moving toward cheap, renewable energy, reducing air pollution and stopping the flow of money to countries like Saudi Arabia bad things?

Or do you just hate Al Gore?

Of course those are all things to strive for. I just hate the doomsday approach and the hypocrisy. I'd rather have market driven solutions. When an electric car runs better and cheaper than gas, I'll be in line to buy one.  I don't want the government, bullied by the likes of Gore, legislating how eco friendly I am.

so, when doomsday actually does approach, will you merely blame the hypocrite, or will you know you've done what you could?

i know i have quite a ways to go before i can honestly say i've done what i could.

Really, if doomsday is upon us, is there anything short of total elimination of all fossil fuel worldwide that will stop it? Nobody seems to advocate that. If evey light bulb in America was a CFL, every car a Prius, how much time would that buy us? If it's all man's fault, we have to stop all activity, across the board. Not 80%…who gets to use the remaining 20%? Nope, has to be all of it. Some will resist. They'll have to be re-educated, possibly killed. Future of the world is in our hands, right? We don't have time to wait for reliable fuel cell cars. Back to horses. Oh, wait, large mammals produce lots of CO2 also.  Wait again…I PRODUCE CO2! WE'RE DOOMED, DOOMED I TELLS YA!!!
(barrel in mouth, pull trigger, bang, just reduced my footprint)

jdbaum wrote:

Really, if doomsday is upon us, is there anything short of total elimination of all fossil fuel worldwide that will stop it?

well, since you asked "the" question, no.

best you just continue ignoring the warnings, since "we done smurfed up".

time might better be spent creating that time capsule ridiculing the folks suggesting a change in our habits, eh?

soylent green! the government is giving it out free!!!!!

jdbaum wrote:

Really, if doomsday is upon us, is there anything short of total elimination of all fossil fuel worldwide that will stop it? Nobody seems to advocate that. If evey light bulb in America was a CFL, every car a Prius, how much time would that buy us? If it's all man's fault, we have to stop all activity, across the board. Not 80%…who gets to use the remaining 20%? Nope, has to be all of it. Some will resist. They'll have to be re-educated, possibly killed. Future of the world is in our hands, right? We don't have time to wait for reliable fuel cell cars. Back to horses. Oh, wait, large mammals produce lots of CO2 also.  Wait again…I PRODUCE CO2! WE'RE DOOMED, DOOMED I TELLS YA!!!
(barrel in mouth, pull trigger, bang, just reduced my footprint)

Do you know anything on the subject that didn't come from right-wing talking points?

ShnickyShnack wrote:

JakeTheTall wrote:

I'm amused by the global climate change debate.  I don't think there's conclusive evidence linking human activity to the recent warming.

However, I did see the rights talking points change over the past ten years from "there's no warming trend !!"  to  "we're not causing it !!  Its a cycle !!  Its the sun !! "

Most of the changes involved in reducing CO2 emissions are worth doing regardless.

Plus, the cost of reducing emissions, compared to the cost  of the (possibile) massive changes ?  Not are hard decision.

That all being said, I'm not fond of Al Gore.

It's a completely circular debate, exactly like the war in Iraq. There is no warming, okay there is but it's continued warming from the last ice age, okay it's spiked in recent years but that's because of solar activity, there's no consensus, okay there is consensus by and large but consensus is irrelevant, why listen to scientists since they're all falsifying their findings in order to score big fat hippy grants.

Round and round she goes. Really it's not about arguing facts, it's about finding rationalizations for one's opinion, which is based not on sober rationality but on emotionalism.

The way I see it the human cause of global warming hasn't yet been definitively proven, though the trends would seem to support it -- however the whole debate is completely meaningless, since there are already, even without global warming, countless reasons for us to drastically reshape our relationship with nature and our planet's resources.

Indeed I think the whole point of resisting the claims of human-caused global warming isn't to logically debate a potentially flawed scientific hypothesis -- there're so many such hypotheses and always will be, it's part of the scientific method -- but to prevent change.

That's basically where I'm at. The global warming debate is now used as a distraction away from the many other more concrete reasons for us to change our energy use habits.

Apparently conservatives have a lot to lose by us becoming more energy independent.

So? Rush is a fat, pompous, blow-hard.