Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human- induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.
Its only "controversial" because it uses common sense, logic and actual statistically significant facts...Which is something the sheeple who drool as they roam around adhering to every word algore says.
Once again, the earth is slowly getting warmer (lately). Scientists are taking 100 years of data and trying to say that is a significant sample size when, even if you believe the bible, the earth is at least 7,000 years old. 100 years out of 7,000 years is very, very insignificant.
Also, anyone who believes that humans have the power to control our climate have a huge superiority complex.
Then when you add the crazy, wacko stuff we have been hearing from gore it makes me wonder how you liberal environmentalist wackos can even tie your shoes in the morning without an email from algore about how you can buy your way out of your carbon footprint....lol.
Great line from one of our readers....based on algore's stupid logic, a woman can commit murder, but it is okay as long as she gets knocked up....yes.
Also, if we the oceans are going to rise 3 or 4 inches, why are we trying to save New Orleans? They are doomed. Just some logic to throw into all the insanity of global warming.
Friday, March 02, 2007
Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
15 comments:
.
.
This Chicken Little hysteria has truly reached manic proportions!
Earlier, I saw where algore is trying to make the case that there is too much balance in the debate over global warming. His reasoning is basically “we’re right, they’re wrong, so balance equates bias.” “Too much balance” in a debate! What an utterly asinine statement. Only a Socialist could say such a thing with a straight face.
Game – expecting the leftist to be rational concerning the environment is like expecting the Clintons to make two complete statements without spinning or lying.
Common sense - When you burn millions of barrels of oil and tons of coal, it's only natual that we are contributing to global warming.
We all know about the natural cycles of global warming and cooling. Question is - Are we speeding up the natural cycle? Are we causing any damage to nature in this process? These are valid questions.
I don't care if it comes from Gore or Michelle Malkin. We need to be open minded about this.
There is such a thing as too much balance. If you give equal time, weight or relevance to someone who denies the holocaust as you do to say Elie Wiesel, that is too much balance.
If you give equal credence to a person who asserts that the earth is flat as you would to say, Stephen Hawking, that would be too much balance.
Or is this too socialist a concept for you?
apples and oranges again
Vittal,
Open-mindedness is not an issue here. The "anti"GW side isn't anti-common sense, anti-true evidence, anti-anything but anti-Gorelike hysteria over highly disputed interpretations of data. The antiGW crowd doesn't want to see our economy trashed over that which is not proven to be true. If there was a true consensus rather than the current make-believe consensus, you'd see conservatives busy taking care of business. It's as simple as that. It's not that Gore is pushing anything, it's that Gore hasn't been proven correct in his blatherings. That's something that needs to be kept in mind. We don't care if Gore's right, we just don't see that he is.
Jim,
You're just goofin', aren't ya?
Jim
The big difference (I can't even believe I have to point this out) is the Globwarmweareallgoingtodie crowd have never reasonably addressed valid points against their position. Unless "don't listen to them they're wrong" is a valid rebuttal in your book.
Or maybe it was the "I'll say anything that sounds really rad and technical at the same time but never addresses the point" argument that swayed you, ie "look at all the consuming we're doing, any reasonable person should KNOW that has to cause/hurt/accelerate global warming".
Know who could possibly argue with baseless, sound bite, logic like that.
No game, the comment is clear, concise, and totally relevant. It is two very good examples of how giving equal weight to two sides of an argument can be wrong. It's not apples and oranges except to someone who either doesn't get it or won't admit it.
Marshall said, "highly disputed interpretations of data". Yes the flat earthers highly dispute that the earth is a globe. If you have 1000 scientists agreeing with Global Warming and 2 disagreeing, is that what you call "highly disputed"?
Furthermore, if you were to actually inform yourself you might learn that the efforts to curb man-made global warming can actually be VERY good for economies. Take a look at the cities and states that are going green. Take a look here.
The investment and job opportunities in developing and producing alternative energy sources are many, not the least of which is to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
Marshall said, "We don't care if Gore's right." What the hell does that mean? If he is right, you simply don't care?
And Blamin' said, "I'll say anything that sounds really rad and technical at the same time but never addresses the point".
What point would that be?
See, to people like Jim, global warming is a certain as 7 million Jews being killed in Germany...
Not only that, but there is NO way that it might be a natural occurance, or that the 100 years of data is COMPLETELY insignificant...no, no, there is NO way anything except what algore says is true....amazing.
Unbelieveable, Game. You simply cannot understand a very simple concept.
I never said any such thing as what you claim.
Let's just say there is no global warming. The steps that would be taken need to be take regardless. That is why I don't understand at all your resistance to this.
Jim
1000 to 2? you've got to be kidding. Isn't it funny that every time a non-swallowitwholegobwarmwearedying speaks up, the "other side" talks about "flat earthers" etc. Is that the best you can do? Oooo
Come on, you can do better than that! Let's see a real answer to a real question!!! OK, I understand, you have to wait for the "official, super duper, top secret, double probation, answer... which you will swallow (gulpgulpgulp) whole hartedley, but come on, give it a try.
Yessss, that's right! I can seeeee the seas taking over the coast line because I didn't seperate my 2 liter Coke bottles from my empty cigarette packs, wooo, wooo, is me! I've destroyed the earth!!!
Marshal art,
Let me ask you again - Are you telling me that there is NO impact due to burning of all those millions of barrels of oil and tons of coal everyday?
It’s not about Gore. Majority of scientists support the notion of global warming. It’s a very serious issue – Our political views shouldn’t cloud our judgment.
It really bothers me to see how conservatives are behaving as if there is absolutely no contribution to global warming at all. I don’t know how much of it comes from their disliking towards Gore and liberals. “We don’t care if Gore’s right…” - I am still trying to understand the your mindset here!
You also said - “If there was a true consensus rather than the current make-believe consensus, you'd see conservatives busy taking care of business.”. It sounds very good to hear! But, I don’t think it’s true though – look at the illegal immigration. What are the conservatives doing? What did they do in the first six years when they had a president, senate and house under their leadership?
It really annoys me when fake conservatives act like crybabies and blame liberals for everything. Probably they should show more in action than in rhetoric!
"Marshall said, "We don't care if Gore's right." What the hell does that mean? If he is right, you simply don't care?"
One of the problems with debate within this medium is the inability or difficulty in relating inflections and other vocal characteristics that convey the true meaning of the speaker. But I appreciate the request for clarification.
What I meant by the above is that we are not concerned that AlGore furthers an idea as much as we are concerned about the idea itself. He can have the credit if he is correct. We don't crap on him simply for being Al Gore, but because AlGore says stupid things, does stupid things, and supports stupid things. But as stupid as he is and can be, if he's on to something, kudos to him! With GW, he's not. And yes. The data trumpeted by the Gore-ites is indeed highly disputed.
How many countries have NOT signed onto Kyoto? How many that have have actually met their individual goals? Over at SisterToldjah.com, she ran a link to a piece describing a total of around 19,000 scientists that have disputed the GW stats hysterically screamed about by the Gore-ites. Another book has come out detailing the distortions and questionable techniques of the Gore-ites. The point here is that the word "consensus" has no place in the debate, for there is nothing that remotely resembles a consensus regarding the impact of man's effect on the current warming trend.
Do I believe that we should pay attention to the effects of our behavior on the environment? Of course! It's a stupid question! I don't litter and I rag on those who do. I don't like businesses to operate with no thought to the possible negative impact they might have on the planet or society. That's a given. It's not whether or not a business can make more or less money being "green" in their practices. It's whether they should be forced due to questionable science, as has happened with regard to second-hand smoke and public spaces, and more importantly, what the effect our signing Kyoto would have on our economy.
And Jim, I read your link. Again, the chuckleheads writing the piece speak of growing consensus. Be it known that henceforth that term will indicate a blatant lie if it isn't supported by concrete evidence. What a business chooses to do for the sake of personal belief or to enhance sales is up to them. The market may now have a say in how businesses conduct their activities. That is as it should be. No problem there. The rest of the piece uses a lot of words to say nothing much else but self-promote.
Vittal,
"Are you telling me that there is NO impact due to burning of all those millions of barrels of oil and tons of coal everyday?"
No. I'm saying that the degree to which there is an impact and whether that degree is sufficient to require massive changes in the way we do business is what is in question. Currently, it seems that there is no reason to believe that the impact is so great that we need to change, or that any change we could hope to accomplish would have any effect on the warming.
"Our political views shouldn’t cloud our judgment."
They don't. Not for us, at least. For AlGore it might be another story. Again, we'd rather have good scientific evidence, not the slim stuff being touted as fact by the Gore-ites. Politically speaking, the IPCC report that just came out is a perfect example of the games the Gore side is playing. The actual scientific version won't be out for a couple of months, but the first one is being put forth as the last word. It isn't the right playing politics with this issue.
You use immigration to dispute my claim, but there's no consensus there, either. Everybody knows the illegal immigration problem exists (GW), but the debate is over what to do about it (Kyoto or no Kyoto).
"Probably they should show more in action than in rhetoric!"
Like the WOT? And here is the real deal, folks, regarding the real threat to our country. The tougher the challenge, the less the libs want to tackle it. Whether it makes a difference or not, fighting the horrors of GW will make the libs feel good about themselves. But a real challenge, such as about one million radical Islamists wanting to kill us or convert us they'd prefer not to think about.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2f4cc62e-5b0d-4b59-8705-fc28f14da388
Another noted scientist turns skeptic on Global Warming.
I don't think people are complaining about globar warming...there is obviously something happening...I am saying that since there is no actual proof man is doing this, changing our entire way of life like algore wants everyone else to do but himself is the problem
Post a Comment