More Evidence on Global Warming
Scott Erb
rate of the melt is roughly 9% per decade, three times faster than people
had thought. The author of the study that has tracked arctic ice melt since
1978, Josefino Comiso, a senior scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight
Center, noted that this year there is less ice cover than ever. Surface
temperatures are rising at the rate of 1.2 celcius every decade, and the
melt may increase. Polar bears are likely to die off, and many other
ramifications of the melt will be felt by animals and humans alike.
Tom Agnew, a research meteorologist with the Meteorology Service of Canada,
says the cause of the warm this linked to green house gas emissions that
humans pump into the atmosphere as they burn fossil fuels.
This is yet another bit of evidence that shows denial of global warming is
impossible to continue. Most scientists who were skeptical pre-1997 are now
admitting that, yes, there is global warming. Only people who put politics
ahead of science try to deny that now, it seems.
(Source for most of the above information: "NASA: Arctic ice vanishing,"
Alanna Mitchell, Toronto Globe and Mail)
TNSAF
> NASA is reporting that arctic ice is vanishing faster than expected.
> The rate of the melt is roughly 9% per decade, three times faster
> than people had thought.
The earth has gone through ice ages and most likely and equal number of
times when the ice has receded back to some point... How do we know (in
our very short time on this rock) this is not a natural phenomenon?
Martin McPhillips
news:%J6G9.31342$vM1.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
And, if you go to the story and read it...
http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/GIS.Servlets.HTMLTemplate?current_row=3&
tf=tgam/search/tgam/SearchFullStory.html&cf=tgam/search/tgam/SearchFullStory
.cfg&configFileLoc=tgam/config&encoded_keywords=%22Alanna+Mitchell%22&option
=&start_row=3&start_row_offset1=&num_rows=1&search_results_start=1&query=%22
Alanna+Mitchell%22
...you'll find that it was not the author of the study who
drew any conclusion about this polar ice phenomenon
being the result of greenhouse gases, but rather a Canadian
meteorologist who the reporter interviewed:
"The cause of all this warmth, said Tom Agnew, a research meteorologist with
the Meteorology Service of Canada, is linked to the greenhouse-gas emissions
that humans are pumping into the atmosphere as they burn fossil fuels."
How very unscientific and political of you, Boris, to represent
the study in the way you did.
Scott Erb
"TNSAF" <No...@nope.com> wrote in message
news:0z7G9.136577$ka.31...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
We have more CO2 in our atmosphere than at any time in 150,000 years, and
scientific models almost uniformally predict that would have the kind of
impact we're now seeing. Also, the evidence shows these temperature changes
are intense and fast, and the impact is in line with expectations.
Scientists are now almost universally in agreement some kind of global
warming is happening (though real consensus has been recent -- as late as
1998 or so the evidence was much weaker). There is the question you ask on
why. Here there is less universal agreement, but still general consensus
that human activity plays a major role. How much of a role breaks down the
consensus further, though few think that it is not impacted in a major way
by human behavior. The sad part, of course, is that we've probably gone too
far to really reverse the trend. Someday when we're in the autumn of our
lives and our grandkids ask why something wasn't done sooner to stop the
problems that will likely come about, we'll have some explaining to do.
It's not that surprising though -- from credit card debt to stock market
bubbles, humans have a very powerful ability to ignore news they don't want
to believe in order to hold on to ideas that are either self-serving or fit
with their pre-existing ideology. Ultimately, we humans tend to like to
"learn the hard way." Unfortunately, with global warming it is the next
generation that will suffer the most.
Martin McPhillips
>
> "TNSAF" <No...@nope.com> wrote in message
> news:0z7G9.136577$ka.31...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
> > Scott Erb wrote:
> > > NASA is reporting that arctic ice is vanishing faster than expected.
> > > The rate of the melt is roughly 9% per decade, three times faster
> > > than people had thought.
> >
> > The earth has gone through ice ages and most likely and equal number of
> > times when the ice has receded back to some point... How do we know (in
> > our very short time on this rock) this is not a natural phenomenon?
>
> We have more CO2 in our atmosphere than at any time in 150,000 years, and
> scientific models almost uniformally predict that would have the kind of
> impact we're now seeing.
What impact is that, Scott? The study that you cited makes no claims
about the impact of CO2. That correlation was made by a Candadian
meteorologist interviewed by the reporter who wrote the article. The
author of the study didn't say it.
Silverback
you god damn idiot any fucking 3rd grader knows that increasing the
CO2 in the atmosphere prevents heat from escaping and therby raising
the overall surface tempature of the planet
We can't help that yer fucking stupid mcIdiot, but do you have to brag
about how stupid you are?
>
=====================================================
GDY Weasel
http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/whiterose.htm
The Nazi Hydra in America an online book of the
fascist influence in America.
http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/noon.html
===================================================
Enough Already!
"Silverback" <gdy5215...@spiritone.com> wrote in message
news:3de9a67f...@news.spiritone.com...
which shows how the third graders of the nation are being brainwashed by the
wacko environmentalist movement.
the number one greenhouse "gas" is NOT CO2, It is water vapor, which is the
MAJOR byproduct of the burning of hydrocarbons. Do the chemistry. The output
of the reaction is CO2 plus H2O. since there are a LOT more H's in
hydrocarbons than there are C's, more H2O is output. QED.
It may well be that industrialization is contributing to global warming.
OTOH, it MAY WELL BE that industrialization is PREVENTING the start of
another ice age.
Those who claim to know one way or another are liars.
>
>
> We can't help that yer fucking stupid mcIdiot, but do you have to brag
> about how stupid you are?
>
Do YOU?
Scott Erb
"Enough Already!" <nowhere@now_here.com> wrote in message
news:asdgu1$r...@dispatch.concentric.net...
>
> It may well be that industrialization is contributing to global warming.
> OTOH, it MAY WELL BE that industrialization is PREVENTING the start of
> another ice age.
>
> Those who claim to know one way or another are liars.
The trouble is too many people are letting their politics guide them on
this. Discover Magazine had a cover story a few months ago that pointed to
the large arctic ice melt as potentially disrupting water flows in the north
Atlantic which would bring a mini-ice age to Europe and the Northeast of the
US, it would alter climate problems. One scientist predicted this could
happen within a decade.
Here's where scientists stand on this, by and large:
1. General consensus: global warming is occurring. The last major
opposition to that whithered in the late nineties as new evidence poured in.
The loss of water in the arctic, and surface temperature increases there,
with the impacts described, is one more bit of evidence that makes this a
point of consensus. All those who dismissed global warming as not happening
should realize that they were wrong.
2. You are correct to point out that no one knows how much a role
industrialization plays in all of this, but most scientists think it plays
some role, and reports suggest an emerging consensus that it is a major
role -- though this is still a point of contention. Again, evidence in the
last four years have converted a lot of scientists who were skeptical.
3. The fear, of course, is not just that of our developed world -- but what
happens if the third world develops, if people start driving cars in India
and China like they do here? A lot of people are worried that unless we
make changes, we're only seeing an initial sign of a major global problem.
Ultimately, no one "knows" for sure what role industrialization plays, or
even if this can be reversed (probably not -- though how bad it gets depends
on what we do). Most scientists I read and know say the data is so
overwhelming, and the models so verified, with predictions of real problems
in as short as twenty years, that to do nothing and focus on short term
economic growth no matter what the environmental cost would be foolhardy.
That seems a pragmatic approach, given the uncertainty, and the potential
consequences of continuing along the same path. After all, those warning
about global warming have been right in most of their predictions, the
skeptics and cynics have slowly been changing their mind. I ask only that
you, and anyone interested in the issue, do NOT let politics determine your
view on this, but look at the science, especially since 2000 and 2001, when
evidence started to come in much faster due to better technology and
experimentation.
molly
nos...@nospam.com says...
So you think Global Warming isn't taking place, because some
Reporter wrote the story?
And then there are all the other studies that pretty much say
the same things these days. ... Scientists wrote those. They
are all wrong, too?
... and all this unsubstantiated "doubt" in your mind probably
makes it OK that Bush suppressed the GW report prepared by his
own Scientists, that would have pretty much forced him to change
his Administration's policies? This is OK with you, too?
I really want to know where you're coming from, Martin. How do
you form your political opinions? What facts do you consult
before you make up your mind?
Do you just stop with Rush Limbaugh? ... do you reason through
all of politics the way you reason through Scott's note on Global
Warming?
Surely a smart guy like you wouldn't mind describing how he
arrives at political decisions, with the rest of us out here.
molly
Enough Already!
>
> "Enough Already!" <nowhere@now_here.com> wrote in message
> news:asdgu1$r...@dispatch.concentric.net...
> >
> > It may well be that industrialization is contributing to global warming.
> > OTOH, it MAY WELL BE that industrialization is PREVENTING the start of
> > another ice age.
> >
> > Those who claim to know one way or another are liars.
>
> The trouble is too many people are letting their politics guide them on
> this. Discover Magazine had a cover story a few months ago that pointed
to
> the large arctic ice melt as potentially disrupting water flows in the
north
> Atlantic which would bring a mini-ice age to Europe and the Northeast of
the
> US, it would alter climate problems. One scientist predicted this could
> happen within a decade.
interesting that you should mention the "arctic" ice cap. May I presume you
are talking about the polar ice cap, which is for the most part over water?
if so, my own theory about the disappearance of this ice pack is quite
simple. Over the last 20-30 years there have been huge increases in the
numbers of expeditions of one kind or another into the region. The
icebreakers have been chopping up that ice pack, and what took many
thousands of years to form is unable to re-form in the few short months
until the next batch of icebreakers shows up. hence - the cap is
disappearing entirely due to human intervention, and not due to warming or
climate change.
nice write up. I'll keep an eye out for this kind of research in my travels
across the net.
The Big Weasel
wrote:
Bonde ("Penguin Bill") tried that one about two years ago, and we're
still laughing at him about it.
Have you ever lived in the North? They have seasons, you know. The
ice melts in the spring, reforms in the fall.
But the seasons are shifting. The ice, on average, melts a week sooner
in the spring at Churchilll Manitoba, reforms two weeks later in the
fall. This is impacting the polar bears, who go out on the ice to
hunt. There's relatively little for them to eat on land, and the
result is a higher mortality rate among the cubs and shorter lives.
The polar bear population is decreaing, and the rate of change is
accellerating as the ice season gets shorter.
At Iqaluit, in Nunavik, you can walk from there to the mainland
(province of Quebec in March, and since the ice is up to forty feet
thick, you don't have to worry about falling through. And icebreakers
can't handle ice pack that thick, which is why a year-round Northwest
Passage is still a flight of fancy. (Although that might change in
the next generation). In late summer, it's all melted, and you can
actually take a dip in the bay, where water temps are as high as 45.
******************
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
Not dead, in jail or a slave? Thank a liberal!
For the finest in leftist/liberal commentary, visit
http://www.zeppcommentaries.com
The Big Weasel
wrote:
>
The difference, of course, is that water vapor joins the normal
precipitation cycle, and the only overall effect is minor increases in
rain in various locales.
CO2 tends to persist, and while, given enough time, will eventually
join the carbon sink (the biomass), isn't doing it at anything
approaching the rate that industry is pumping out more CO2.
Just read a report today that within thirty years at the present rate
of decline, Glacier National Park will no longer have any Glaciers.
>
>It may well be that industrialization is contributing to global warming.
>OTOH, it MAY WELL BE that industrialization is PREVENTING the start of
>another ice age.
>
>Those who claim to know one way or another are liars.
>
>
>>
>>
>> We can't help that yer fucking stupid mcIdiot, but do you have to brag
>> about how stupid you are?
>>
>
>Do YOU?
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> >
>>
>> =====================================================
>>
>> GDY Weasel
>> http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/whiterose.htm
>>
>> The Nazi Hydra in America an online book of the
>> fascist influence in America.
>>
>> http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/noon.html
>>
>> ===================================================
>
******************
Martin McPhillips
>
> "Enough Already!" <nowhere@now_here.com> wrote in message
> news:asdgu1$r...@dispatch.concentric.net...
> >
> > It may well be that industrialization is contributing to global warming.
> > OTOH, it MAY WELL BE that industrialization is PREVENTING the start of
> > another ice age.
> >
> > Those who claim to know one way or another are liars.
>
> The trouble is too many people are letting their politics guide them on
> this.
That's certainly true in your case.
> Discover Magazine had a cover story a few months ago that pointed to
> the large arctic ice melt as potentially disrupting water flows in the
north
> Atlantic which would bring a mini-ice age to Europe and the Northeast of
the
> US, it would alter climate problems. One scientist predicted this could
> happen within a decade.
Yes, we hear cataclysmic predictions from scientists as a matter
of routine.
And Discover Magazine is a magazine that covers science; it isn't
science.
> Here's where scientists stand on this, by and large:
>
> 1. General consensus: global warming is occurring.
That's right, Boris: .6 degrees C. over the past century,
interrupted by a cooling trend between app. 1945 and
1975 while greenhouse gases were increasing.
> The last major
> opposition to that whithered in the late nineties as new evidence poured
in.
It's not a question of opposition; it's a question of why and how,
of whether it's a natural trend, and whether human activity has
made a substantial contribution to it, or any contribution at all.
It's entirely possible, for instance, that natural processes are
responsible for all of it.
> The loss of water in the arctic, and surface temperature increases there,
> with the impacts described, is one more bit of evidence that makes this a
> point of consensus. All those who dismissed global warming as not
happening
> should realize that they were wrong.
Get off the strawman for once, Erb.
Scott Erb
> "Scott Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> interesting that you should mention the "arctic" ice cap. May I presume
you
> are talking about the polar ice cap, which is for the most part over
water?
>
> if so, my own theory about the disappearance of this ice pack is quite
> simple. Over the last 20-30 years there have been huge increases in the
> numbers of expeditions of one kind or another into the region. The
> icebreakers have been chopping up that ice pack, and what took many
> thousands of years to form is unable to re-form in the few short months
> until the next batch of icebreakers shows up. hence - the cap is
> disappearing entirely due to human intervention, and not due to warming or
> climate change.
Well, I'll go with the scientists who have been measuring an increase of
temperatures at a rate of 1.6 degrees celcius per decade and increasing.
But if you want to test your theory and challenge the scientists, go ahead!
Silverback
wrote:
>
wrong agian it shows what a good job public schools do in teaching
real science
>
>the number one greenhouse "gas" is NOT CO2, It is water vapor, which is the
wrong agian you dumb fucker, since the amount of water vapor in the
atmosphere is a constant for any given temperature, it cannot increase
to cause further global warming without the temperatruee changing
first.
>MAJOR byproduct of the burning of hydrocarbons. Do the chemistry. The output
>of the reaction is CO2 plus H2O. since there are a LOT more H's in
>hydrocarbons than there are C's, more H2O is output. QED.
poor dumb fucker must have never seen it rain, once again the water
vapor content of the atmosphere is a fixed constant at a given
temperature,
>
>It may well be that industrialization is contributing to global warming.
>OTOH, it MAY WELL BE that industrialization is PREVENTING the start of
>another ice age.
>
>Those who claim to know one way or another are liars.
yer a damn liar
>
>
>>
>>
>> We can't help that yer fucking stupid mcIdiot, but do you have to brag
>> about how stupid you are?
>>
>
>Do YOU?
wrong again fuckhead yer the fucking idiot that don't even know basic
science that third graders know.
Silverback
wrote:
>"Scott Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>news:rQrG9.32976$vM1.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>
>> "Enough Already!" <nowhere@now_here.com> wrote in message
>> news:asdgu1$r...@dispatch.concentric.net...
>> >
>> > It may well be that industrialization is contributing to global warming.
>> > OTOH, it MAY WELL BE that industrialization is PREVENTING the start of
>> > another ice age.
>> >
>> > Those who claim to know one way or another are liars.
>>
>> The trouble is too many people are letting their politics guide them on
>> this. Discover Magazine had a cover story a few months ago that pointed
>to
>> the large arctic ice melt as potentially disrupting water flows in the
>north
>> Atlantic which would bring a mini-ice age to Europe and the Northeast of
>the
>> US, it would alter climate problems. One scientist predicted this could
>> happen within a decade.
>
>
>interesting that you should mention the "arctic" ice cap. May I presume you
>are talking about the polar ice cap, which is for the most part over water?
>
>if so, my own theory about the disappearance of this ice pack is quite
>simple. Over the last 20-30 years there have been huge increases in the
>numbers of expeditions of one kind or another into the region. The
>icebreakers have been chopping up that ice pack, and what took many
hahhahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahhahhahaha
god damn this littl fool must have a long history of inbredding to be
that fucking stupid.
Hey moron breaking ice up into small pieces doesn't cause it to melt
Only temperatures above 32F can cause that
=====================================================
Quirt Evans
delay the big freeze of a POSSIBLE coming ice age. And the ocean will be
a factor. And the distance of the sun. Yep. Ice ages and warmer
"interglacials" alternate in cycles. In the past few cycles, the
relatively warm interglacials lasted about 10,000 years. Since our
current interglacial started about 10,000 years ago, it's due to end any
time now. When? Well, soon. Okay? The ice ages last much longer - maybe
80,000 to 100,000 years? Who knows?
Why this cycle repeats itself? We dunno. The elliptical nature of the
Earth's orbit? A slight wobble in its tilt on its axis?
The input of greenhouse gas COULD have a slight impact on the
climate 50,000 years in the future.
Of course, scientologists and UFO enthusiasts believe there's just
as much evidence that our creators from other planets will show up and
save us from the coming global warming which might occur and might last
decades and the ice age which might occur and might last tens of
thousands of years, but might be slowed down some by the global warming
which might occur.
Carbon dioxide might be a factor, too.
Let's have a "hold your breath" day. Maybe that'll help. Or, just vote
Democrat. Yeah. That's the ticket. Wait. I've got a better idea. You
libs all hold your breath and wait for that to happen.
veronica floss
2218.public.lawson.webtv.net>, gore...@hotmail.com says...
This is just quibbling. It is not even GOOD quibbling.
---
Scientists have found that the atmospheric Carbon dioxide (CO2)
level and our mean global temperature are closely related. The
global temperature rise lags a rise in the C02 level by about 25
years.
Scientists have discovered that the mean global temperature is
closely related to climactic conditions, and that our climate
controls our food supply.
We know that industrialization has caused at least a third of the
C02 rise that has occurred over the last 150 years or so, and
that this has accelerated over the last 50 years or so.
The current rise in the CO2 level predicts that our mean global
temperature will rise several degrees over the next few years, to
the highest it has been in 20 million years by some scientific
estimates. This is *not* part of a natural climatic cycle.
We also know from other Scientific research, that a rise in
temperature this serious will cost us -- all of us -- our food
supply. Further, it will cause mass extinctions which guarantee
that we will not be able to replace current our food supply with
anything else. It will not be pretty.
Notice this has nothing whatever to do with your silly
UFO nonsense, or your "epicycles."
----
It's called Science, quirt. It's what Liberals do, when they
examine whether they should or should not do something to
resolve a problem they've identified.
It's precisely what Conservatives like you DON'T practice. You
replace real Scientific analysis with the rhetoric of
disparagement. Make fun of somebody; you solve the problem. You
become legends in what passes for your own minds.
For an example; see Rush Limbaugh.
... and for another excellent example, I refer you again to your
own silly quibbling response, above.
VeeVee
veronica floss
ze...@finestplanet.com says...
[snip]
> Just read a report today that within thirty years at the present rate
> of decline, Glacier National Park will no longer have any Glaciers.
Great comeback.
It's hard to add to it, but I'll try:
The Arctic Sea has lost forty percent of its ice shield in only
25 years or so.
The North Pole is now in open water every Summer for the first
time in millions of years.
We now have not one Northwest Passage every Summer, but two: One
across the top of Canada, and one across all of Siberia, all the
way from Norway to the Bering Sea.
The Western Antarctic ice shield now has has massive cracks,
showing the possibility that it might calve enough fresh ice to
cover France AND Germany starting perhaps in 20 years. This is a
lot of fresh water. Nobody knows how much it would raise sea
levels, but it certainly would be several yards, destroying some
of our best coastal farmland and affecting every port city in the
world.
This is NOT up for question: It's happening now.
This is NOT part of a natural climactic cycle.
It does NOT matter whether we ourselves did it: It only matters
what we ourselves will DO about it in the future.
Republicans are NOT dealing intelligently with the problem.
VeeVee
Christopher Morton
wrote:
>In article <hrjkuu46gcncpt1rd...@4ax.com>,
>ze...@finestplanet.com says...
>> On 01 Dec 2002 17:29:37 GMT, "Enough Already!" <nowhere@now_here.com>
>> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> Just read a report today that within thirty years at the present rate
>> of decline, Glacier National Park will no longer have any Glaciers.
>
>
>Great comeback.
Milt Brewster will find a way to blame "the Jews(tm)".
--
"sure an a nigger is going to use denigrate." - Glen Yeadon
"Who gives an FF what anyone says about the jooz." - Judy Diarya
"Jews mean nothing to me." - Judy Diarya
"Everyone but you knows the jews were behind 9-11." - Judy Diarya
"Stop using that term homophobia, you idiot. Normal people don't fear
the queers. We just don't like them. Call me a homobigot." - Judy Diarya
"When will you idiot pugs learn that 9-11 was america's fault??" - Judy Diarya
Nap
"veronica floss" <fl...@hygene.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.185ab1359...@news.sonic.net...
CO2 and global temperature is not well correlated. This is why
the socialist lying bastards always throw out the older data where
the lack of correlation is demonstrated, and why they willingly
accept bad data.
Science is a discipline done by people who have no bias, or can
set their bias asside. The socialist version of science is not unlike
the right wing Christian version of science; start with the desired
conclusion (in this case, that the Western world is evil and should
be made to stop using hydrocarbon fuel and become like the 3rd
world...) and work back to the desired "science". Creationist do
the same thing. "Global warming" is to liberals what "Creationism"
is to right wing Christians.
[snip]
> We know that industrialization has caused at least a third of the
> C02 rise that has occurred over the last 150 years or so, and
> that this has accelerated over the last 50 years or so.
A period of 50 years that contains a cooling trend the socialist
pseudo-scientist willfully ignore because it shows increasing
CO2 during that cooling trend.
What global warming there is, and there isn't much because
of bad data due to urbanization of areas where data was collected,
is entirely explained by a very good correlation with solar output.
> The current rise in the CO2 level predicts that our mean global
> temperature will rise several degrees over the next few years, to
> the highest it has been in 20 million years by some scientific
> estimates. This is *not* part of a natural climatic cycle.
CO2 levels don't predict a anything, of course. Liberal pseudo-
scientist like to use the words "computer" and "model" to describe
their lastest fabrications to justify their conclusions. Models need
to be tested, least they be prone to data mining and the like.
Quirt Evans
Oh, come on, Vee Vee. It was a little bit good.
"You replace real Scientific analysis with the rhetoric of
disparagement. Make fun of somebody; you solve the problem. You become
legends in what passes for your own minds."
Well, honestly, I don't recall you personally ever being guilty of
it, but when it comes to "rhetoric of disparagement" or "Make fun of
somebody; you solve the problem", I think the libs on this discussion
board tend to hold a monopoly on that debate tactic. Yes, I see right
wingers doing it, but usually in response to an initial attack from a
lib, or it's an old feud of a thousand threads which nobody remembers
who started.
Quirt Evans
Christians."
Excellent analogy. I suppose I'm guilty as charged on the "Creationism"
point. ( Doesn't make me wrong, though. neener neener:}~ )
The Big Weasel
Actully, I think it shows the difference between fundies and people
with normal brains. You see, evidence supports global warming, but it
strongly disparages creationism. You, of course, gravitate to a
position where you can explain it all by saying gawd magicked it that
way or some such.
Scott Erb
"The Big Weasel" <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote in message
news:4b84vuo5d3fnl73r9...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 7 Dec 2002 04:22:19 -0600 (CST), gore...@hotmail.com (Quirt
> Evans) wrote:
>
> >""Global warming" is to liberals what "Creationism" is to right wing
> >Christians."
> >
> >Excellent analogy. I suppose I'm guilty as charged on the "Creationism"
> >point. ( Doesn't make me wrong, though. neener neener:}~ )
>
> Actully, I think it shows the difference between fundies and people
> with normal brains. You see, evidence supports global warming, but it
> strongly disparages creationism. You, of course, gravitate to a
> position where you can explain it all by saying gawd magicked it that
> way or some such.
The existence of global warming is a broad scientific consensus.
Even skeptics have been convinced the evidence in the last two or three
years especially.
The exact causes are more controversial, but it is another broad scientific
consensus that green house gas emissions are a major part of this.
The impact is hard to predict, but most scientists paint pretty pessimistic
pictures. I know conservative scientists who are adamant that global
warming is a danger. The only types that try to deny it are those driven by
political ideology to ignore science. Even the Bush administration has
acknowledged this, though Bush throw a bone to his more rabid extremist
supporters by winking and saying "I don't always agree with the
bureaucrats."
Nap
> Evans) wrote:
>
> >""Global warming" is to liberals what "Creationism" is to right wing
> >Christians."
> >
> >Excellent analogy. I suppose I'm guilty as charged on the "Creationism"
> >point. ( Doesn't make me wrong, though. neener neener:}~ )
>
> Actully, I think it shows the difference between fundies and people
> with normal brains. You see, evidence supports global warming,
Warming yes. But not as warm as the left wing liberals say, nor does
evidence support their claim that the cause of the warming is man
made CO2.
CO2 is a minor component to global warming. Virtually all of the
green house effect is due to water vapor. You can look up from time
to time and see vast amounts of it condensing out of the air into
tiny droplets that are visible as a thing called "clouds". You don't
see that with CO2.
Starting with the conclusion that CO2 causes global warming,
much as the creationist start with the conclusion that the world
was created by God, the liberals work back and create models
that support their conclusion, and then proudly announce that
their models predict their dire future predictions that require
the socialist 3rd world solutions they desire. Very much like
how creationist use their "science" to try and support their
conclusion that we should all submit to their particular version
of God.
Neither of these is science. Both examples are characteristic of
people who don't understand what the scientific method is.
There is far more evidence that the global warming is natural
and related to solar variations than there is to support any sort
of relation with CO2.
The Big Weasel
>
>"The Big Weasel" <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote in message
>news:4b84vuo5d3fnl73r9...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 7 Dec 2002 04:22:19 -0600 (CST), gore...@hotmail.com (Quirt
>> Evans) wrote:
>>
>> >""Global warming" is to liberals what "Creationism" is to right wing
>> >Christians."
>> >
>> >Excellent analogy. I suppose I'm guilty as charged on the "Creationism"
>> >point. ( Doesn't make me wrong, though. neener neener:}~ )
>>
>> Actully, I think it shows the difference between fundies and people
>> with normal brains. You see, evidence supports global warming,
>
>Warming yes. But not as warm as the left wing liberals say, nor does
>evidence support their claim that the cause of the warming is man
>made CO2.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, Nappy, and we know that it has skyrocketed
over the past 100 years to the highest levels seen in over 80,000
years. QED.
>
>CO2 is a minor component to global warming. Virtually all of the
>green house effect is due to water vapor. You can look up from time
>to time and see vast amounts of it condensing out of the air into
>tiny droplets that are visible as a thing called "clouds". You don't
>see that with CO2.
>
Is there an increase in water vapor like there is in greenhouse gas?
Do you know what equilibrium is? It mean if two elephants weigh the
same, if one elephant has a feather placed on his back, then the
scales will no longer balance. Think of water vapor as the elephants,
and CO2 as the feather.
>Starting with the conclusion that CO2 causes global warming,
>much as the creationist start with the conclusion that the world
>was created by God, the liberals work back and create models
>that support their conclusion, and then proudly announce that
>their models predict their dire future predictions that require
>the socialist 3rd world solutions they desire. Very much like
>how creationist use their "science" to try and support their
>conclusion that we should all submit to their particular version
>of God.
I've never seen a liberal suggest that global warming can be cured by
socialism. But if you want to make such a silly claim, party all
night.
At least you have brains enough not to try to defend the creationists.
I think that's a good move on your part.
>Neither of these is science. Both examples are characteristic of
>people who don't understand what the scientific method is.
The scientific method is that of forming theories, and then trying to
disprove the theories through careful measurement and analysis.
Creationism failed such testing catastrophically. Global warming
hasn't.
>
>There is far more evidence that the global warming is natural
>and related to solar variations than there is to support any sort
>of relation with CO2.
>
Actually, there isn't. We haven't wobbled closer to the sun, and
there has been no noticeable increase in solar output.
Nap
> On Sat, 07 Dec 2002 19:22:38 GMT, "Nap" <now...@anon.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"The Big Weasel" <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote in message
> >news:4b84vuo5d3fnl73r9...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 7 Dec 2002 04:22:19 -0600 (CST), gore...@hotmail.com (Quirt
> >> Evans) wrote:
> >>
> >> >""Global warming" is to liberals what "Creationism" is to right wing
> >> >Christians."
> >> >
> >> >Excellent analogy. I suppose I'm guilty as charged on the
"Creationism"
> >> >point. ( Doesn't make me wrong, though. neener neener:}~ )
> >>
> >> Actully, I think it shows the difference between fundies and people
> >> with normal brains. You see, evidence supports global warming,
> >
> >Warming yes. But not as warm as the left wing liberals say, nor does
> >evidence support their claim that the cause of the warming is man
> >made CO2.
>
> CO2 is a greenhouse gas, Nappy, and we know that it has skyrocketed
> over the past 100 years to the highest levels seen in over 80,000
> years. QED.
Yes it is, you stinkin' weasel. And yes, it has increased.
The point you are ignoring is that it is still an insignificant amount
of greenhouse gas compared to water vapor.
> >CO2 is a minor component to global warming. Virtually all of the
> >green house effect is due to water vapor. You can look up from time
> >to time and see vast amounts of it condensing out of the air into
> >tiny droplets that are visible as a thing called "clouds". You don't
> >see that with CO2.
> >
> Is there an increase in water vapor like there is in greenhouse gas?
> Do you know what equilibrium is? It mean if two elephants weigh the
> same, if one elephant has a feather placed on his back, then the
> scales will no longer balance. Think of water vapor as the elephants,
> and CO2 as the feather.
Clearly, you have no concept of what a stable equilibrim is, an
unstable one, and a saddle point. You're assuming an unstable
equilibrium, and a sensitive one at that, simply because that is what
you need to do to support your preconceived conclusion.
CO2 is indeed the feather to water vapor's elephant. But if the
equilibrium was as unstable as you claim, then we should have
seen monotonically increasing global temperatures for the last
100 years, and we DON'T. We saw cooling in past decades
as recent as the 60s. This disposes of the unstable equilibrium
argument. The "models" advanced by your fellow socialist lying
rat bastards are dependent on throwing this past data out in
order to get good agreement between the data and their dire
predictions.
> >Starting with the conclusion that CO2 causes global warming,
> >much as the creationist start with the conclusion that the world
> >was created by God, the liberals work back and create models
> >that support their conclusion, and then proudly announce that
> >their models predict their dire future predictions that require
> >the socialist 3rd world solutions they desire. Very much like
> >how creationist use their "science" to try and support their
> >conclusion that we should all submit to their particular version
> >of God.
>
> I've never seen a liberal suggest that global warming can be cured by
> socialism. But if you want to make such a silly claim, party all
> night.
It is what the Koyoto treaty is all about, isn't it? Death to the American
capitalist, hurray for the third world workers who get all of the
American fossil fuel to burn. Even the rat bastard lying socialist
admit that Koyoto will not reduce CO2 levels, just move it to the
3rd world.
[snip sillyness]
> there has been no noticeable increase in solar output.
You are completely wrong about that.
This increased solar output has caused not only the actual
global warming (which is less than the bad data gathered
by the leftist) we have seen on earth, but the global warming
seen on Mars, too.
For measurements that show that the solar output varies and has
been increasing in recent times...
See:
http://www.aas.org/publications/baas/v29n2/spd28/abs/S014002.html
And See:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/SORCE/sorce_03.html
"Another trend scientists have picked up on appears to span several
centuries. Late 17th century astronomers observed that no sunspots
existed on the Sun's surface during the time period from 1650 to
1715 AD. This lack of solar activity, which some scientists attribute
to a low point in a multiple-century-long cycle, may have been partly
responsible for the Little Ice Age in Europe. During this period, winters
in Europe were much longer and colder than they are today. Modern
scientists believe that since this minimum in solar energy output, there
has been a slow increase in the overall sunspots and solar energy
throughout each subsequent 11-year cycle."
Right after this quote is a graph of sun-spot activity, which, by the
way, the 11 year average follows the true global warming measurements;
measurements that are at time counter correlated to the increasing
CO2 levels.
Conclusion: Global temperatures are, at best, weakly correlated to
CO2 levels and closely correlated to solar activity. Solar output varies
by day, week, years, decades and even eons. Global warm periods
and cold periods are strongly correlated to this solar output.
Nap
> On Sat, 07 Dec 2002 19:22:38 GMT, "Nap" <now...@anon.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"The Big Weasel" <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote in message
> >news:4b84vuo5d3fnl73r9...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 7 Dec 2002 04:22:19 -0600 (CST), gore...@hotmail.com (Quirt
> >> Evans) wrote:
> >>
> >> >""Global warming" is to liberals what "Creationism" is to right wing
> >> >Christians."
> >> >
> >> >Excellent analogy. I suppose I'm guilty as charged on the
"Creationism"
> >> >point. ( Doesn't make me wrong, though. neener neener:}~ )
> >>
> >> Actully, I think it shows the difference between fundies and people
> >> with normal brains. You see, evidence supports global warming,
> >
> >Warming yes. But not as warm as the left wing liberals say, nor does
> >evidence support their claim that the cause of the warming is man
> >made CO2.
>
> CO2 is a greenhouse gas, Nappy, and we know that it has skyrocketed
> over the past 100 years to the highest levels seen in over 80,000
> years. QED.
Yes it is, you stinkin' weasel. And yes, it has increased.
The point you are ignoring is that it is still an insignificant amount
of greenhouse gas compared to water vapor.
> >CO2 is a minor component to global warming. Virtually all of the
> >green house effect is due to water vapor. You can look up from time
> >to time and see vast amounts of it condensing out of the air into
> >tiny droplets that are visible as a thing called "clouds". You don't
> >see that with CO2.
> >
> Is there an increase in water vapor like there is in greenhouse gas?
> Do you know what equilibrium is? It mean if two elephants weigh the
> same, if one elephant has a feather placed on his back, then the
> scales will no longer balance. Think of water vapor as the elephants,
> and CO2 as the feather.
Clearly, you have no concept of what a stable equilibrim is, an
unstable one, and a saddle point. You're assuming an unstable
equilibrium, and a sensitive one at that, simply because that is what
you need to do to support your preconceived conclusion.
CO2 is indeed the feather to water vapor's elephant. But if the
equilibrium was as unstable as you claim, then we should have
seen monotonically increasing global temperatures for the last
100 years, and we DON'T. We saw cooling in past decades
as recent as the 60s. This disposes of the unstable equilibrium
argument. The "models" advanced by your fellow socialist lying
rat bastards are dependent on throwing this past data out in
order to get good agreement between the data and their dire
predictions.
> >Starting with the conclusion that CO2 causes global warming,
> >much as the creationist start with the conclusion that the world
> >was created by God, the liberals work back and create models
> >that support their conclusion, and then proudly announce that
> >their models predict their dire future predictions that require
> >the socialist 3rd world solutions they desire. Very much like
> >how creationist use their "science" to try and support their
> >conclusion that we should all submit to their particular version
> >of God.
>
> I've never seen a liberal suggest that global warming can be cured by
> socialism. But if you want to make such a silly claim, party all
> night.
It is what the Koyoto treaty is all about, isn't it? Death to the American
capitalist, hurray for the third world workers who get all of the
American fossil fuel to burn. Even the rat bastard lying socialist
admit that Koyoto will not reduce CO2 levels, just move it to the
3rd world.
[snip sillyness]
> there has been no noticeable increase in solar output.
You are completely wrong about that.
Chris Nelson
news:28912-3DF...@storefull-2218.public.lawson.webtv.net...
Actually, global warming denial is akin to evolution denial, moon-landing
denial, and Holocaust denial. In the face of overwhelming evidence in favor
of all of these, they deny, deny, deny.
--
Chris
Eagle Eye
<zeppd...@finestplanet.com> wrote: [snip]
>I've never seen a liberal suggest that global warming can be cured
>by socialism.
Read the Green Party platform.
Most environmentalists are anti-capitalist. You can't force people
to stop engaging in activity which environmentalists deem harmful
without interfering with their economic liberty.
=====
EE
Honorato libertam et ruat coelum.
The Big Weasel
>
>"The Big Weasel" <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote in message
>news:a2m4vus0eorcjs1r2...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 07 Dec 2002 19:22:38 GMT, "Nap" <now...@anon.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"The Big Weasel" <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote in message
>> >news:4b84vuo5d3fnl73r9...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Sat, 7 Dec 2002 04:22:19 -0600 (CST), gore...@hotmail.com (Quirt
>> >> Evans) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >""Global warming" is to liberals what "Creationism" is to right wing
>> >> >Christians."
>> >> >
>> >> >Excellent analogy. I suppose I'm guilty as charged on the
>"Creationism"
>> >> >point. ( Doesn't make me wrong, though. neener neener:}~ )
>> >>
>> >> Actully, I think it shows the difference between fundies and people
>> >> with normal brains. You see, evidence supports global warming,
>> >
>> >Warming yes. But not as warm as the left wing liberals say, nor does
>> >evidence support their claim that the cause of the warming is man
>> >made CO2.
>>
>> CO2 is a greenhouse gas, Nappy, and we know that it has skyrocketed
>> over the past 100 years to the highest levels seen in over 80,000
>> years. QED.
>
>Yes it is, you stinkin' weasel. And yes, it has increased.
Really? Well, could you point me to a site where I can see the
measurements for myself?
>
>The point you are ignoring is that it is still an insignificant amount
>of greenhouse gas compared to water vapor.
>
Ah, but it's not insignificant. That's the point you are ignoring.
>> >CO2 is a minor component to global warming. Virtually all of the
>> >green house effect is due to water vapor. You can look up from time
>> >to time and see vast amounts of it condensing out of the air into
>> >tiny droplets that are visible as a thing called "clouds". You don't
>> >see that with CO2.
>> >
>> Is there an increase in water vapor like there is in greenhouse gas?
>> Do you know what equilibrium is? It mean if two elephants weigh the
>> same, if one elephant has a feather placed on his back, then the
>> scales will no longer balance. Think of water vapor as the elephants,
>> and CO2 as the feather.
>
>Clearly, you have no concept of what a stable equilibrim is, an
>unstable one, and a saddle point. You're assuming an unstable
>equilibrium, and a sensitive one at that, simply because that is what
>you need to do to support your preconceived conclusion.
Oh, I agree that the changes will be minor. Temps aren't going to go
to 450 degrees, or suddenly drop to -250. Just a few degrees.
Just enough, paleontology tells us, to wipe out the animals at the top
of the food chain.
No big deal. Equilibrium will reoccur within a few centuries, no
doubt.
******************
Nap
> On Sat, 07 Dec 2002 22:35:41 GMT, "Nap" <now...@anon.com> wrote:
> >> CO2 is a greenhouse gas, Nappy, and we know that it has skyrocketed
> >> over the past 100 years to the highest levels seen in over 80,000
> >> years. QED.
> >
> >Yes it is, you stinkin' weasel. And yes, it has increased.
>
> Really? Well, could you point me to a site where I can see the
> measurements for myself?
You want ME to give citations for stuff you claim and I agreed with?!
My gawd, I knew you pulled facts out of your ass, but I didn't know
you needed to have people provide cites for you when you happen
to get one right!
[snip rest where Zepp ignores where he's proven wrong...]
The Big Weasel
Nice job of selective editing there, Nappy. You were referring to
water vapor. Your claim is that it increased. I asked for a cite.
Good luck on that, Nappy. Judging from this tactic, I sorta doubt I'm
going to be seeing one.
Nap
> On Sun, 08 Dec 2002 00:37:00 GMT, "Nap" <now...@anon.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"The Big Weasel" <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote in message
> >news:nb35vucg9uko1nutr...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 07 Dec 2002 22:35:41 GMT, "Nap" <now...@anon.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >> CO2 is a greenhouse gas, Nappy, and we know that it has skyrocketed
> >> >> over the past 100 years to the highest levels seen in over 80,000
> >> >> years. QED.
> >> >
> >> >Yes it is, you stinkin' weasel. And yes, it has increased.
> >>
> >> Really? Well, could you point me to a site where I can see the
> >> measurements for myself?
> >
> >You want ME to give citations for stuff you claim and I agreed with?!
> >
> >My gawd, I knew you pulled facts out of your ass, but I didn't know
> >you needed to have people provide cites for you when you happen
> >to get one right!
> >
> >[snip rest where Zepp ignores where he's proven wrong...]
>
> Nice job of selective editing there, Nappy. You were referring to
> water vapor. Your claim is that it increased. I asked for a cite.
Where the hell do you see "water vapor" in what you wrote? You
said CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and it is. You said it has increased,
and it has. Too bad that has nothing to do with global warrming.
No where did I say water vapor increased. The only increase in
vapor I can see is the vapor between your ears.
Silverback
>
>"The Big Weasel" <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote in message
>news:4b84vuo5d3fnl73r9...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 7 Dec 2002 04:22:19 -0600 (CST), gore...@hotmail.com (Quirt
>> Evans) wrote:
>>
>> >""Global warming" is to liberals what "Creationism" is to right wing
>> >Christians."
>> >
>> >Excellent analogy. I suppose I'm guilty as charged on the "Creationism"
>> >point. ( Doesn't make me wrong, though. neener neener:}~ )
>>
>> Actully, I think it shows the difference between fundies and people
>> with normal brains. You see, evidence supports global warming,
>
>Warming yes. But not as warm as the left wing liberals say, nor does
>evidence support their claim that the cause of the warming is man
>made CO2.
yes it does little right wing fool
in fact the latest reports on global warming show it to be increasing
at a greater rate than first believed.
>
>CO2 is a minor component to global warming. Virtually all of the
>green house effect is due to water vapor. You can look up from time
not hardly idiot.
fact the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is constant it cannot
be exceeded without first raising the temperature or it rains.
>to time and see vast amounts of it condensing out of the air into
>tiny droplets that are visible as a thing called "clouds". You don't
>see that with CO2.
more bullshit
>
>Starting with the conclusion that CO2 causes global warming,
>much as the creationist start with the conclusion that the world
>was created by God, the liberals work back and create models
>that support their conclusion, and then proudly announce that
>their models predict their dire future predictions that require
>the socialist 3rd world solutions they desire. Very much like
>how creationist use their "science" to try and support their
>conclusion that we should all submit to their particular version
>of God.
>
>Neither of these is science. Both examples are characteristic of
>people who don't understand what the scientific method is.
well little moron when you can prove to us that the CO2 from the
burning of fossil fuels doesn't follow simple physical laws of the
universe like the rest of the CO2 in the air, you might have an
arguement. But i'm goign to be laughing my ass off at you trying to
tag all of those CO2 molecules from the burning of fossil fuels.
>
>There is far more evidence that the global warming is natural
>and related to solar variations than there is to support any sort
>of relation with CO2.
>
>
>
>
>
=====================================================
Silverback
nope thats bullshit, little events like volcanos can disrupt the
pattern for a couple of years and so can smog.
By the way little fool the smog problem was partly the reason for
cooler temps, but then we don;t have a smog problem like what existed
in the 1960s except in Texas were the smirk JUNTA gutted the clean air
laws.
>100 years, and we DON'T. We saw cooling in past decades
>as recent as the 60s. This disposes of the unstable equilibrium
nope, and from that it is clear you don't have a fucking clue as to
what yer talking about or for that matter about equillibrum
=====================================================
The Big Weasel
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
Were not worrying about the Green Party, birdie boy. We're worried
about global warming. But since you want to insert your ideological
idiocies in here, fine: give us a specific example of anyone
proposing socialism as a cure to global warming. Be specific, and
provide cites.
>
> =====
> EE
>
> Honorato libertam et ruat coelum.
******************
Nap
> On 7 Dec 2002 23:34:29 -0000, Eagle Eye
> <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>
> >In article <a2m4vus0eorcjs1r2...@4ax.com> The Big Weasel
> ><zeppd...@finestplanet.com> wrote: [snip]
> >>I've never seen a liberal suggest that global warming can be cured
> >>by socialism.
> >
> >Read the Green Party platform.
> >
> >Most environmentalists are anti-capitalist. You can't force people
> >to stop engaging in activity which environmentalists deem harmful
> >without interfering with their economic liberty.
>
> Were not worrying about the Green Party, birdie boy. We're worried
> about global warming. But since you want to insert your ideological
> idiocies in here, fine: give us a specific example of anyone
> proposing socialism as a cure to global warming. Be specific, and
> provide cites.
No one has ever claimed that socialist rat bastards were open and
honest. Quite the opposite! They are liars and deceptive; so no, they
don't come out and say that the way to save the environment is to
install socialism. All you have to do is look at what they are doing
to realize that they are exploiting using the environmental angle and a
big bag of lies to try and cripple the economy of the U.S. and
transfer the wealth and industry of the U.S. to the 3rd world.
As I pointed out, and you failed to refute, global warming is
the result in variations in solar output and has nothing to do
with CO2 levels. We saw CO2 levels rise in the 60s while
global temperatures dropped; this refutes the unstable equilibrium
theory, and supports the solar output theory as solar output
was at a local minimum then. Dishonest socialist pseudo-scientist
throw out this data knowing that it reveals them to be bold
faced liars.
Silverback
wrong again fuckhead, it doesn't refute the longterm equillibrum
theory at all
any idiot that suggest such nonsense proves he is unqualified to speak
on the subject
>was at a local minimum then. Dishonest socialist pseudo-scientist
>throw out this data knowing that it reveals them to be bold
>faced liars.
>
>
>
=====================================================
SemiScholar
Evans) wrote:
Except that pretty much all the scientists seem to be on the side of
both global warming and evolution.
Rocky and Bullwinkle
Silverback <gdy5215...@spiritone.com> wrote in message
news:3df2e279...@news.spiritone.com...
> On Sat, 07 Dec 2002 19:22:38 GMT, "Nap" <now...@anon.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"The Big Weasel" <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote in message
> >news:4b84vuo5d3fnl73r9...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 7 Dec 2002 04:22:19 -0600 (CST), gore...@hotmail.com (Quirt
> >> Evans) wrote:
> >>
> >> >""Global warming" is to liberals what "Creationism" is to right wing
> >> >Christians."
> >> >
> >> >Excellent analogy. I suppose I'm guilty as charged on the
"Creationism"
> >> >point. ( Doesn't make me wrong, though. neener neener:}~ )
> >>
> >> Actully, I think it shows the difference between fundies and people
> >> with normal brains. You see, evidence supports global warming,
> >
> >Warming yes. But not as warm as the left wing liberals say, nor does
> >evidence support their claim that the cause of the warming is man
> >made CO2.
>
> yes it does little right wing fool
>
> in fact the latest reports on global warming show it to be increasing
> at a greater rate than first believed
place consumption taxes on the American people, while the robber barons are
having their taxes cut.
Wall Street has declared war on main street! They have already
succeeded in getting Welfare transferred from the poor, to the
global gangsters.
WHY NO HEARINGS ON "GLOBAL WARMING"?
Because they can't get scientists to lie under oath. In fact,
most reputable scientists say the planet is getting cooler.
"Voodoo" science is being used as an excuse to impose draconian
legislation. The truth is: that 97% of CO2 emmissions -- the
cause of so-called global warming -- occur naturally; of the
final 3% America only contributes .6% -- a negligible amount.
These globalist have a hidden agenda with their proposals, and it
is not to promote the public interest. It is an agenda to give
"big brother" more control over our lives, and a gradual
imposition of a regressive consumption tax. These monies will be
used to pay for further taxcuts for the rich, and to add to the
over 200 billion dollars -- according to Ralph Nader -- of
corporate Welfare benefits they illegally receive.
Also, the "multinationals" intend to use this farce as an excuse
to make our domestic producers less competitive. Through the Federal
Reserve (higher interest rates), and the administration's strong
dollar policy (up from 83 to 143), they have begun their assault
on American industry, and the American people. Since the passage
of NAFTA and GATT our trade deficit has quadrupled, and is increasing
exponentially. People are now losing their jobs in droves.
In addition George Soros caused a run on the East Asian currencies.
Not only will this cost the American taxpayer 84 billion dollars
in the IMF billionaire bailout, but it will make it even cheaper
for the robber barons to purchase property, and produce their
products there. Remember the pesos devaluation after NAFTA was
signed?
Multinational companies are enemies of America, and for this gov't
to aid them is an act of Treason! For all practical purposes they
are foreigners, and should not be allowed to participate in our
political process.
Finally, there is a gov't conspiracy to give unelected bureaucrats
dictatorial powers -- this constitutes Sedition.
These people need to be prosecuted under the RICO statute. I am sure
witnesses could be produced by granting immunity.
Eagle Eye
<zeppd...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>On 7 Dec 2002 23:34:29 -0000, Eagle Eye <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
>wrote:
>>In article <a2m4vus0eorcjs1r2...@4ax.com> The Big
>>Weasel <zeppd...@finestplanet.com> wrote: [snip]
>>>I've never seen a liberal suggest that global warming can be cured
>>>by socialism.
>>Read the Green Party platform.
>>
>>Most environmentalists are anti-capitalist. You can't force people
>>to stop engaging in activity which environmentalists deem harmful
>>without interfering with their economic liberty.
>Were not worrying about the Green Party, birdie boy.
Who is "we"? Does that include the 2.7 million people who voted for
Ralph Nader?
Go read the platform. In particular, look at the "Economic Bill of
Rights":
http://www.greenparty.org/Platform.html#1
Look at the full text:
http://www.greenpartyus.org/platform/2000/index.html
Search for the phrase "ENVIRONMENTAL TAXES", for example.
>We're worried about global warming.
Who is "we"? Why do you get to speak for that particular group?
>But since you want to insert your ideological idiocies in here, fine:
>give us a specific example of anyone proposing socialism as a cure
>to global warming. Be specific, and provide cites.
Go read the Green Party platform.
It's no secret that environmental groups are dominated by socialists
and other anti-capitalists. What do you expect to gain by pretending
this isn't so?
ralph
>
> It's no secret that environmental groups are dominated by socialists
> and other anti-capitalists. What do you expect to gain by pretending
> this isn't so?
Alternately, why is it 'conservatives' have no interest in conservation,
efficiency, selfsufficiency, the health of American citizens, and not
placing ourselves in a position where you either knuckle under to
economic extortion or go to war?
--
When life hands you crap, make crapenade.
Scott Erb
"ralph" <124...@gernsback.net> wrote in message
news:3DF594...@gernsback.net...
Here in Maine, where people are very environmentally conscious, most
conservatives I know are also environmentalists, concerned about global
warming and wanting regulation on harm to our ecosystem.
Conservatives are better than you say they are on the environment, Eagle Eye
is totally wrong (though that guy is a real loon anyway) in how he portrays
environmentalists. At least here where people realize how important our
environment is, there is a bond between liberals and conservatives that this
is something too important to be approached via ideology and partisanship.
Nap
Many conservatives think the second coming is around the corner,
that God gave them the world to use up, and pollution doesn't matter.
Interior Sec. James Watt comes to mind.
How this justifies lying about global warming to advance an
anti-American agenda isn't at all clear.
Eagle Eye
Scott Erb <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>"ralph" <124...@gernsback.net> wrote in message
>news:3DF594...@gernsback.net...
>> Eagle Eye wrote:
>> > It's no secret that environmental groups are dominated by socialists
>> > and other anti-capitalists. What do you expect to gain by
>> > pretending this isn't so?
>> Alternately, why is it 'conservatives' have no interest in
>> conservation, efficiency, selfsufficiency, the health of American
>> citizens, and not placing ourselves in a position where you either
>> knuckle under to economic extortion or go to war?
I don't know. Why don't you ask a conservative?
>Here in Maine, where people are very environmentally conscious, most
>conservatives I know are also environmentalists, concerned about
>global warming and wanting regulation on harm to our ecosystem.
Do you have anything besides your unsubstantiated anectdotal
"evidence"?
>Conservatives are better than you say they are on the environment,
>Eagle Eye is totally wrong (though that guy is a real loon anyway)
>in how he portrays environmentalists.
Read the Green Party platform, Scott. Read the writings of leaders
of environmentalist groups.
You can call me a "loon" rather than deal honestly with my arguments,
but you can't change the facts. You can pretend that you're not a
socialist, but the policies you endorse belie that claim.
To control how people use resources to the extent that environmentalists
want, the government must necessarily impose strict controls on the
economic liberty of individuals. That is inherently anti-capitalist.
Furthermore, it suits the socialist agenda.
>At least here where people realize how important our environment is,
>there is a bond between liberals and conservatives that this is
>something too important to be approached via ideology and partisanship.
Could you cite a survey to back this up? Show us some published
research on the political demographics of people in Maine with respect
to environmental policy? Or, are you just pulling this from your ass,
as you normally do?
The contrast between Democrats/Greens/"leftists"/"liberals" and other
political groups on this issue is obvious. What do you expect to gain
by trying to hide or minimize this conflict?
I endorse ecological conservation, but I don't support government
mandates. The ethical way to handle this is to convince people of
the value of protecting the environment.
z
> I endorse ecological conservation, but I don't support government
> mandates. The ethical way to handle this is to convince people of
> the value of protecting the environment.
Yeah. Just like the ethical way to prevent murder is to convince
people of the value of not killing other people, rather than passing
laws restricting individual freedom.
z
Ah; the classic old Yankee conservatives still survive back in their
New England lairs, where the more aggressive mutant species crossbred
from radical religious rightists and corporate toadies dare not
venture. Thank God.
Eagle Eye
An individual's right to liberty doesn't include murder, since murder
is the violation of another's right to life. Thus, laws prohibiting
murder aren't restricting individual freedom.
People have every right to defend their lives from would-be
murderers, including using deadly force and hiring others to
help.