What's the modivation behind "global warming"

[GuitarDaddy]

Two schools of thought here

1. The earths ecosystem if a balanced and fragile system that reacts unfavorably to the introduction of un natural man made toxins, deforestation, and pollution. The people that support this position have a fair amount of solid science to back them up but can't definatively prove a direct correlation between the causes and effects. These folks would rather err on the side of caution and premptively take action to minimize the effects on the eco system.

2. The second group is not convinced that the man made hazzards propose any threat to the ecosystem either because they don't believe that the toxins and waste effect the ecosystem adversely or that the effect is so small and the ecosystem is so big that nothing we can do will harm it. And they believe the fact that group 1 can't prove without a shadow of a doubt that damage is being(or has been) done, is justification enough to continue using the earth as their trash can.


I have to go with group 1 on this one

As general logic says increasing the level of toxins in any living ecosystem enevitably can't be good, and just because we can't prove the rate or the extent of the damage isn't a good reason to keep shitting in the test tube.
Add to that the fact that many of the most vocal in group 2 are directly financially motivated to continue the status quo and it invalidates their argument even farther.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

And just for our friends in New Zealand a story how NIWA (National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research) "lost" ummm "destroyed?" their "adjusted data" after years of people trying to get the data out of them with freedom of information acts.

http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the...reveals-nz-original-climate-data-missing.html

Ignoring FOIA requests for years - Check
"Adjusting" the data - Check
Losing the original data - Check

And where have we heard that before? This isn't science...this is horse shit.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Two schools of thought here

1. The earths ecosystem if a balanced and fragile system that reacts unfavorably to the introduction of un natural man made toxins, deforestation, and pollution. The people that support this position have a fair amount of solid science to back them up but can't definatively prove a direct correlation between the causes and effects. These folks would rather err on the side of caution and premptively take action to minimize the effects on the eco system.

2. The second group is not convinced that the man made hazzards propose any threat to the ecosystem either because they don't believe that the toxins and waste effect the ecosystem adversely or that the effect is so small and the ecosystem is so big that nothing we can do will harm it. And they believe the fact that group 1 can't prove without a shadow of a doubt that damage is being(or has been) done, is justification enough to continue using the earth as their trash can.


I have to go with group 1 on this one

As general logic says increasing the level of toxins in any living ecosystem enevitably can't be good, and just because we can't prove the rate or the extent of the damage isn't a good reason to keep shitting in the test tube.
Add to that the fact that many of the most vocal in group 2 are directly financially motivated to continue the status quo and it invalidates their argument even farther.

...and then there's Group 3 which you willfully ignore or are unable to recognize due to abject ignorance. My money is on abject ignorance.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

...and then there's Group 3 which you willfully ignore or are unable to recognize due to abject ignorance. My money is on abject ignorance.

I guess you belong to this mysterious group 3(yet you don't bother stating your belief). I assume group 3 presents no argument either way and just claim anything they don't like is ignorant. And yes I willfully ignore your group as you have nothing to add to any meaningful conversation.

Of course you can prove me wrong and define group 3 and tell me what you believe, but I suspect you won't because it's not as fun as randomly claiming superiority over someone on the interwebs.

 

[Munky]

Two schools of thought here

1. The earths ecosystem if a balanced and fragile system that reacts unfavorably to the introduction of un natural man made toxins, deforestation, and pollution. The people that support this position have a fair amount of solid science to back them up but can't definatively prove a direct correlation between the causes and effects. These folks would rather err on the side of caution and premptively take action to minimize the effects on the eco system.

2. The second group is not convinced that the man made hazzards propose any threat to the ecosystem either because they don't believe that the toxins and waste effect the ecosystem adversely or that the effect is so small and the ecosystem is so big that nothing we can do will harm it. And they believe the fact that group 1 can't prove without a shadow of a doubt that damage is being(or has been) done, is justification enough to continue using the earth as their trash can.


I have to go with group 1 on this one

As general logic says increasing the level of toxins in any living ecosystem enevitably can't be good, and just because we can't prove the rate or the extent of the damage isn't a good reason to keep shitting in the test tube.
Add to that the fact that many of the most vocal in group 2 are directly financially motivated to continue the status quo and it invalidates their argument even farther.

The problem is group 1 isn't really concerned about preserving the earth's ecosystem but rather scamming the general population to make a profit. These pseudo-scientists have numerous times been caught manipulating data in their favor, denying FOI requests for a real peer-to-peer review, and using politics and influence to silence dissent within their ranks.

As technology improves, it becomes cleaner and more efficient. Today's cars are much cleaner than the ones from 40 years ago, for example. This is a natural progression of our civilization. But these clowns aren't advocating we build clean nuclear plants. No, instead they want to tax our existing outdated technology and infrastructure for profit.

And lastly, it helps if you take everything these climate clowns say with a huge grain of salt. Their main agenda now is carbon trading, because CO2 is suddenly a major threat to our planet. But CO2 is a tiny percentage of the gasses in the atmosphere, it is needed by plants to produce oxygen, and humans only contribute a small fraction of the total CO2 our planet produces. There is no proof that rising CO2 level are directly causing rising temperature, and furthermore, the temperature has actually not been rising for the last few years. The deeper you dig into their so-called science, the more BS becomes uncovered.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

And to all those that believe the burden of proof should be on the environmentalists a big FUCK YOU!! That argument amounts to saying "I have the right to piss in your water supply until you can prove 100% that my negligence is causing you harm"

How about we turn it around and say "Any entity that proposes to release toxins into the ecosystem must prove these agents to be 100% free of harm or they can't release a drop"

 

[GuitarDaddy]

The problem is group 1 isn't really concerned about preserving the earth's ecosystem but rather scamming the general population to make a profit. These pseudo-scientists have numerous times been caught manipulating data in their favor, denying FOI requests for a real peer-to-peer review, and using politics and influence to silence dissent within their ranks.

As technology improves, it becomes cleaner and more efficient. Today's cars are much cleaner than the ones from 40 years ago, for example. This is a natural progression of our civilization. But these clowns aren't advocating we build clean nuclear plants. No, instead they want to tax our existing outdated technology and infrastructure for profit.

And lastly, it helps if you take everything these climate clowns say with a huge grain of salt. Their main agenda now is carbon trading, because CO2 is suddenly a major threat to our planet. But CO2 is a tiny percentage of the gasses in the atmosphere, it is needed by plants to produce oxygen, and humans only contribute a small fraction of the total CO2 our planet produces. There is no proof that rising CO2 level are directly causing rising temperature, and furthermore, the temperature has actually not been rising for the last few years. The deeper you dig into their so-called science, the more BS becomes uncovered.

I see, these asshat scientist are only in it to make a profit but the industries that pollute must have our best interests at heart and their motivation is purely humanitarian. And I love how you guys are quick to call global warming science bullshit, but you fucking stumble all over yourselves to present your own bullshit science to prove toxic waste makes cute dogs and healthy babies.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I guess you belong to this mysterious group 3(yet you don't bother stating your belief). I assume group 3 presents no argument either way and just claim anything they don't like is ignorant. And yes I willfully ignore your group as you have nothing to add to any meaningful conversation.

Of course you can prove me wrong and define group 3 and tell me what you believe, but I suspect you won't because it's not as fun as randomly claiming superiority over someone on the interwebs.

This thread is 5 pages long...please call out those that you feel fit into your little group 2 pigeon hole...please list those people here who think manmade toxins don't pose any threat to the ecosystem and that our planet is their trash can so perhaps they can take the opportunity to shed a little light on what is reality vs. what is the perversions of your imagination. You make a blatant and patently false dichotomy and expect meaningful conversation? Seriously.

 

[Munky]

I see, these asshat scientist are only in it to make a profit but the industries that pollute must have our best interests at heart and their motivation is purely humanitarian. And I love how you guys are quick to call global warming science bullshit, but you fucking stumble all over yourselves to present your own bullshit science to prove toxic waste makes cute dogs and healthy babies.

CO2 is not a pollutant or a toxic gas. I love how the climate mafia presents a good-sounding motive, like preserving the rain forest or some such, and then turns around to push a completely unrelated and unhelpful agenda, like cap and trade.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

This thread is 5 pages long...please call out those that you feel fit into your little group 2 pigeon hole...please list those people here who think manmade toxins don't pose any threat to the ecosystem and that our planet is their trash can so perhaps they can take the opportunity to shed a little light on what is reality vs. what is the perversions of your imagination. You make a blatant and patently false dichotomy and expect meaningful conversation? Seriously.

And what is your position again? Oh yeah, you don't have one. You just bash anything you percieve as liberal because Glenn Beck seys its the bad, and if anybody presents a contrary argument just fall back to name calling.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

CO2 is not a pollutant or a toxic gas. I love how the climate mafia presents a good-sounding motive, like preserving the rain forest or some such, and then turns around to push a completely unrelated and unhelpful agenda, like cap and trade.

Hey, I think we may have a point of agreement I think the idea of cap and trade is almost as stupid as the climate change deniers. My argument is completly based on are we are aren't we as humans causing harm to our environment, and my point is for safety sake we have to assume that we are.

How we address it is another debate altogether, and I agree that cap and trade is just stupid and will not address the issue. However to try and discredit global warming science as linked to or a justification for cap and trade is equally as stupid

 

[Munky]

Hey, I think we may have a point of agreement I think the idea of cap and trade is almost as stupid as the climate change deniers. My argument is completly based on are we are aren't we as humans causing harm to our environment, and my point is for safety sake we have to assume that we are.

How we address it is another debate altogether, and I agree that cap and trade is just stupid and will not address the issue. However to try and discredit global warming science as linked to or a justification for cap and trade is equally as stupid

Nothing stupid about doubting the doom and gloom claims of GW advocates when their evidence doesn't hold up. The best theory I can agree with is we don't know exactly how the earth's climate system works and all the variables that affect it, and until we do, trying and pass legislation based on fabricated evidence is absurd.

That's not to say we shouldn't push for cleaner, more efficient technology that dumps less pollution and wastes less resources. That will happen eventually with time, but none of the solutions proposed by the climate mafia seem like they contribute in a helpful way. Their agenda revolves around the unproven threat of impending disaster, and pushing ridiculous ideas like taxing CO2, or giving up eating meat.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

And what is your position again? Oh yeah, you don't have one. You just bash anything you percieve as liberal because Glenn Beck seys its the bad, and if anybody presents a contrary argument just fall back to name calling.

You never presented a contrary argument...you made a simple-minded false dichotomy to justify your opinion and continue to fail in recognizing the perversity of your 'reasoning'. BTW...I know this may be difficult for you to grasp...but I don't listen to Glenn Beck. Wake up.

 

[Deudalus]

My argument is completly based on are we are aren't we as humans causing harm to our environment, and my point is for safety sake we have to assume that we are.

Now watch what we do here..........

My argument is completly based on isn't Saddam Hussein a threat to national security, and my point is for safety sake we have to assume that he is.

Not a whole lot of difference there is there?

You lefties are fear mongering on a global scale though. You definitely took it to a whole other level.

 

[Hacp]

for safety sake we have to assume that we are.

Thats the same argument religious wackos make to convince you to join their church. What if? What if god existed, then if you die won't you regret it? Just spend 1/7th of your life being our slaves and that what if won't happen.