Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Man-Made Global Warming Fears

[BMW540I6speed]

maluckey said:

The more I read on GW, the more I'm convinced that $$$$$$$$$$ are on the line on both sides and common sense has gone by the wayside.

Arguing about which scientist is better or more respected than the other solves zilch, squat, nada. Finding ways to clean where we live...priceless!

Indeed!

This Isn't Theory - It's About Mandatory Pollution Controls

We aren't arguing a theory - we're arguing over whether it's necessary for our government to pass legislation that requires industrial sites to reduce their toxic emissions.

Industrial pollution causes cancer, birth defects and acid rain. Pure & simple

Notice, for example, that Exxon doesn?t seem to care (and has produced no commercials) about the ?debate? between those that believe in evolution and those that believe in Intelligent Design.

Interesting side note: ID adherents also believe that ?evolution? is a grand hoax designed to by Freemasons and the Illuminati to destroy America. Very similar to how climate-skeptics view the grand international ?hoax? of climate change.

Why haven?t the major industrial powers in America shown the obsessive interest in the ?scientific debate? between evolutionists and ID?ers the same way they have with the science of climate change?. Because only climate change would force them to spend money upgrading their industrial sites!

Regardless of whether or not DDT impacts our climate, the crap still causes cancer and needs to be eliminated in favor of something else. Same with the other pollutants.

Throughout history corporations have insisted (in hysterical tones!) that if such-and-such regulation was passed it would destroy America.

Abolish slavery? Why that will bankrupt America!

Abolish child labor? Why that will utterly destroy America!

A 40 hour work week? Why that madness will make it impossible for any business to function in America!

Worker safety requirements? Why that will cost trillions upon trillions of dollars and bankrupt America!

And now we have pollution controls. And once again the plutocrats are screaming in hysteria that?Upgrade our pollution controls? Why that will?..and you know how the rest of the song goes.

They?ve opposed every single improvement to our society ever proposed and they?ve been dead wrong every single time.

Finally it looks like most people are learning to just ignore their hysterical ?cut and run? attitude towards our "War on Pollution!"

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Global warming is a red herring. We should be more concerned about pollution & non-sustainable resource exploitation.

 

[maluckey]

We aren't arguing a theory - we're arguing over whether it's necessary for our government to pass legislation that requires industrial sites to reduce their toxic emissions.

By we, I hope you are meaning those that care where and how their children and grandchildren will live in the future?

Global warming is a red herring. We should be more concerned about pollution & non-sustainable resource exploitation

The more I read on it the more I agree 100 percent, though some on this very forum would label you as an "idiot" for that statement. By addressing those core issues, you would immediately work on the path that would lead to reduced emissions, and....less GW if that is your religion, and less pollution and a cleaner Earth if you are undecided or an unbeliever. Everyone wins in the long run.

What do I know though...I'm an idiot for wanting clean air and water though:roll:

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: umbrella39
for the OP and all other eco-terrorists. These threads are getting very, very boring especially when they are just regurged tripe from other right winger anti GW chain emails. The OP needs an original idea perhaps.

EDIT: and Bow is correct, 100% R

Eco-terrorists? :roll:

Here's one for you too, Bush wannabe.

It is the antithesis of the oft used eco-theist line. I like Bush but have no desire to become one, unless it were Kate Beckinsale's perhaps. Thanks for the , I'll just hang on to it for now.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus
Global warming is a red herring. We should be more concerned about pollution & non-sustainable resource exploitation.

:thumbsup:

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus
Global warming is a red herring. We should be more concerned about pollution & non-sustainable resource exploitation.

:thumbsup:

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: albatross
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09...ref=slogin&oref=slogin

What that article fails to address is the harsh transitions our world's organisms need to deal with.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: IGBT

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: IGBT

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: IGBT

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Two thousand years of published human histories say that the warm periods were good for people

I have been saying this for a while. It's ridiculous to think that the current climate is PERFECT, so either a cooling would be overall good or a warming would be overall good. I imagine that, overall, the planet would benefit from more warmth than cooling. People harp, brainlessly and endlessly on only the negatives, and this is all totally irrespective of how much influence we even have on the warming trend anyway.

..true. but the eco-theists are frothing at the mouth over the massive cash flow this fraud will generate once it's institutionalized. Just imagine all the white coat/clip board bureaucrat do nothing jobs.. a fraud like this will fund. You'll have massive org.s in each state similar to DMV running around certifying your co2 emission's. And like your vehicles you'll have to register/recert every year.

Heh, and our current energy system doesn't have that? Whatever we do, energy is a HUGE business, people are going to try to make as much money off of it as they can...that's a stupid reason to do or not do something.

In any case, that "eco-theist" label is a little misplaced, as the VAST majority of climate scientists support the idea that human beings are significantly contributing to climate change. If there is any position that requires faith, it's the idea that all these professional scientists are wrong.

...So what are we to make of (in alphabetical order) Dr. Tim Ball at the University of Winnipeg, Dr. Robert Balling at Arizona State University, Dr. Bob Carter at James Cook University in Australia, Dr. Randall Cerveny at Arizona State University, Dr. John Christy at the University of Alabama, Dr. Robert Davis at the University of Virginia, Dr. Christopher Essex at the University of Western Ontario, Dr. Oliver Frauenfeld at the University of Colorado, Dr. Wibjörn Karlèn at Stockholm University, and Dr. Christopher Landsea at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)?

And what about Dr. David Legates at the University of Delaware, Dr. Henry Linden at IIT, Dr. Richard Lindzen at MIT, Dr. Ross McKitrick at the University of Guelph, Dr. Patrick Michaels at the University of Virginia, Dr. Dick Morgan at the University of Exeter, Dr. Tim Peterson at Carleton University, Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. at the University of Colorado, Dr. Eric Posmentier at Dartmouth College, Dr. Willie Soon at Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Dr. Roy Spencer at the University of Alabama, and Dr. Boris Winterhalter at the University of Helsinki?<<< All are respected authorities on climatology, working at respected universities, who appear regularly in peer-reviewed science journals ... and they all dispute Gore?s alarmist claims.

Assuming your claim that they are "respected authorities on climatology", I don't see why we have to make anything of it. Very few scientific topics achieve the kind of universal consensus you seem to expect, it wouldn't be unusual to see a few dissenters on almost any topic. But they are in a very small minority among climate scientists, which suggests to me that it's MORE likely that the other side is right.

..500 years ago the vast majority of scientists concluded thru consensus the world was flat. The willing accomplices aren't reporting so called "dissenters". Thus the lop side appearance. Wouldn't want to upset/undermine the agenda.

Those scientists got to have their say. They argued and there were back and fourths, and in the end, science prevailed, with the vast majority of the scientific community agreeing that the theories of so and so were true.