Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,814 Year: 3,071/9,624 Month: 916/1,588 Week: 99/223 Day: 10/17 Hour: 6/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bin Laden and Al Gore are now two peas in a pod
Apothecus
Member (Idle past 2410 days)
Posts: 275
From: CA USA
Joined: 01-05-2010


Message 21 of 138 (545685)
02-04-2010 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Buzsaw
02-04-2010 7:43 PM


Re: BSing The Thread
Hey Buzsaw.
Why don't you people show a little class by addressing the pertinent topic points ranther than hijacking the thread and trashing an upstanding member for sport.
I think the problem lies with the fact that not many of us rational-minded folk can see a "pertinent" or "addressable" topic point, other than the fact that Bin Laden is, y'know, bad.
The rest of it is ridiculous. That is, subject to ridicule. Conspiracy theories and nothing more...
Have a good one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Buzsaw, posted 02-04-2010 7:43 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-04-2010 9:02 PM Apothecus has not replied

  
Apothecus
Member (Idle past 2410 days)
Posts: 275
From: CA USA
Joined: 01-05-2010


Message 22 of 138 (545686)
02-04-2010 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by xongsmith
02-04-2010 2:54 PM


Re: PS - Maybe now some will understand what 911 was all about!
Actually, I have it on special authority that Stalin believed that 2 + 2 = 3.999... instead of 4.

"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by xongsmith, posted 02-04-2010 2:54 PM xongsmith has not replied

  
Apothecus
Member (Idle past 2410 days)
Posts: 275
From: CA USA
Joined: 01-05-2010


Message 36 of 138 (545834)
02-05-2010 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by John 10:10
02-05-2010 3:51 PM


Re: Perhaps equating Al Gore to Ben Laden is where you set yourself up for ridicule
Hey John 10:10.
When 95% of the CO2 emitted to the atmosphere is non-man made, how can scientists be so sure that the 5% of the CO2 emitted to the atmosphere which is man made is causing climate change? If so, how do you explain the decline in global temps since 1998?
Reference, please?
Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by John 10:10, posted 02-05-2010 3:51 PM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by John 10:10, posted 02-06-2010 2:41 PM Apothecus has replied

  
Apothecus
Member (Idle past 2410 days)
Posts: 275
From: CA USA
Joined: 01-05-2010


Message 40 of 138 (545886)
02-05-2010 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Buzsaw
02-05-2010 9:01 PM


Re: Responses Obfuscating My Position
Hi Coragyps. Perhaps that has a bearing on the fact that over the years my acerage has become like a jungle here in upstate NY. It appears that the plants are loving it.
As for global warming, perhaps we could use a little these days here in the Americas.
The minute I tell myself that I need to quit just assuming I know what's in the minds of the far right because, by and large, it negatively colors my opinions of and responses to these folk, something like this comes along and smashes my desire to be inclusive.
I'm a pretty moderate guy, in my opinion. For instance, I can admit that, despite the mountains of evidence we see supporting global warming (can everyone at least agree worldwide temps have increased? Polar ice caps, anyone?), there still may not be enough data to conclusively prove that this isn't largely a natural cycle of the climate of the earth. That's not to say that we're not at least contributing to this fluctuation, but let's call that "neither here nor there."
But what chaps my ass is when (mostly) conservative-bent Limbaugh-lovers use this denial of rising temps, etc as an excuse to not only not attempt to decrease their own carbon emissions, but to consciously "buck the establishment" by doing the exact opposite. Everyone knows someone like this. Hey, plants love carbon, so let's go gas up the Hummer!
In the interest of full disclosure (as if that's required on an anonymous forum) I own two vehicles, one of which gets only 20mpg highway. I use more than my share of electricity. I'm not perfect. And, again, I can accept that there may just be not enough data for me to decide either way. But to me, if humans have anything at all to do with global warming, doesn't it make sense to at least try? Couldn't hurt, right?
The recalcitrance of (most) conservatives on this issue is mind boggling. I, for one, hope you were being at least a little sarcastic, Buz. If not, that's a lot pathetic.
Have a good one.

"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Buzsaw, posted 02-05-2010 9:01 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Apothecus
Member (Idle past 2410 days)
Posts: 275
From: CA USA
Joined: 01-05-2010


Message 80 of 138 (546047)
02-07-2010 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by John 10:10
02-06-2010 2:41 PM


A bit 'o referential misrepresentation
Thanks for the reply, J10:10.
Let's look a little further at your reference links you provided.
Link #1 @ Wikipedia:
These natural sources are nearly balanced by physical and biological processes, called natural sinks, which remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. For example, some carbon dioxide dissolves in sea water, and some is removed by plants during the photosynthesis.
OK, so we see that most, if not all, of the earth's naturally formed carbon seems to be in a sort of equilibrium with processes which remove that carbon from the atmosphere. So what do you suppose happens to the other 8 billion metric tons of non-anthropogenic carbon (human produced) each year? Clearly, if our natural sinks can't accomodate it, it'll remain in the atmosphere. Now, I admit the jury is still out on exactly what it's doing up there, but I tend to lean toward the IIPC's findings over the years, although you'll probably deem them bunk, as they shared part of Al Gore's Peace Prize. (insert ad hominem attack here) Like I said before, even if you're not one of the brazenly ignorant folk who ignores sound science in favor of a politically biased opinion (aka you're on the fence), what could possibly stop you from at least trying to decrease those pollutants which are supposedly increasing the temperature on our planet? Oh and also, according to your link:
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations.
Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries due to the timescales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabilized, although the likely amount of temperature and sea level rise varies greatly depending on the fossil intensity of human activity during the next century (pages 13 and 18).[41]
The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%.
Emphasis mine. Would you care to link me to a different website, one maybe a little more biased to your personal tastes?
On to Link #2
Here's a story of scientific investigation and discovery I'm proud to have had a small part in.
Aside from the fact that this is really nothing more than a personal blog and thus can't really be considered impartial (or verifiable, for that matter), we find that the pertinent data is confined to the US only. So, since 1998 is no longer the hottest year on record in the US, then 1934 is the hottest year on record everywhere on earth. Good science, that. (Although it was interesting that the infamous temp. testing site was in Detroit Lakes, MN (!). Nothing like bringing a "conspiracy" close to home )
So thanks but no thanks for the reading entertainment. Watching you right-wingers, hoodwinked by the likes of Limbaugh and Faux News etc., tap dance yourselves into an environmental corner is funny stuff!!
Have a good one.
Edited by Apothecus, : speelign

"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by John 10:10, posted 02-06-2010 2:41 PM John 10:10 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-16-2010 9:55 PM Apothecus has replied

  
Apothecus
Member (Idle past 2410 days)
Posts: 275
From: CA USA
Joined: 01-05-2010


Message 81 of 138 (546396)
02-10-2010 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by John 10:10
02-06-2010 2:41 PM


Bump for John 10:10
Thought I'd new this one up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by John 10:10, posted 02-06-2010 2:41 PM John 10:10 has not replied

  
Apothecus
Member (Idle past 2410 days)
Posts: 275
From: CA USA
Joined: 01-05-2010


Message 83 of 138 (547172)
02-16-2010 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Hyroglyphx
02-16-2010 9:55 PM


Re: A bit 'o referential misrepresentation
And because it has become so politicised, I can't trust anyone just yet.
This is pretty much my position these days, as well. Like I said, the jury's still out on climate change: whether it exists and if it does exist, why? I just tend to err on the side of what seems to be best for our earth at this point in time. I'm no nut job worrying about decreasing my carbon footprint by installing solar panels in my front yard, but I recycle what I can and compost my kitchen garbage. But I agree that it's gone from a "movement" to an "industry" faster than I think anyone expected it could happen. I heartily enjoy poking holes in either side, especially when confronted by a ridiculous radical like J10:10 and his bullshit.
Have a good one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-16-2010 9:55 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by RAZD, posted 02-16-2010 10:42 PM Apothecus has replied
 Message 88 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-17-2010 8:23 PM Apothecus has not replied

  
Apothecus
Member (Idle past 2410 days)
Posts: 275
From: CA USA
Joined: 01-05-2010


Message 85 of 138 (547225)
02-17-2010 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by RAZD
02-16-2010 10:42 PM


Re: A bit 'o referential misrepresentation
Thanks for the reply RAZD.
I don't think I can offer much in the way of an argument; I agree there are many, many reasons why we should accept that worldwide temps (and water levels) are currently on the rise. My current position can be seen in Message 40. I lean substantially toward your opinion, though I also believe much work needs be done toward proving that a natural cycle of the earth's climate doesn't share at least part of the blame for rising temperatures. But just because I may (somewhat) qualify as a fence-sitter does not mean I'll sit back on my laurels like some climate change hoax proponents would have me do, when I can at least try to effect some change.
But then, you know, what do you think would happen should the world's population somehow change enough of our habits and lifestyles to reverse the warming trend? The global warming deniers would then deny that there was ever a problem at all, that the climate trend reversed itself on its own. We seem to be damned if we do, damned if we don't.
In the meantime, though, I'm personally going to do my darndest to prevent the worst from happening, even as the ignorant bury their heads in the sand and wait for it to all be over.
Have a good one.

"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by RAZD, posted 02-16-2010 10:42 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by RAZD, posted 02-17-2010 12:48 PM Apothecus has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024