Please Help Me Get Up To Speed About Climate Change

[skyhorse]

This says it all.http://www.conservativecartoons.com/index.php

[Nordic Viking]

This says it all.http://www.conservativecartoons.com/index.php

Yes it does; when you have Obama Derangement Syndrome you post off topic subjects about him in every thread.

[lepto]

The word "causing" is where your argument falls down... had you said "contributing", I might have agreed. (Elephant farts also "contribute" without "causing".)

I apologize for screwing up on the jargon--I'm new to this conspiracy!

I'm throwing the Brown Flag on this play. "97%"? I don't think you have any foundation for that figure; you're just pulling numbers out of your backside, now. How many climatologists are there in the world? Who designated them climatologists? Have you vetted their credentials? Have you taken the poll; or do you have the poll results? Have you examined their data? What, if any, kind of verification have you done to make the decision that you accept their conclusions? What, if anything, are you doing besides parroting what you've heard from some unspecified source?

However, you apparently think I should just accept it....simply because you do? Sorry, but I have more self-respect than that.

Well it looks like you got me. It wasn't all of the climatologists in the world--just the 1,300-1,400 "climate researchers most actively publishing in the field." The poll findings "show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and [emphasis added] (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers." http://m.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full

The "fun stuff"? For whom? What if the "why" is because they're delusional? Is that "fun"? Perhaps from a sociologist's or a psychologist's perspective....sort of a study of "Stupid Human Tricks". The problem is, there is an overabundance of examples of human beings being stupid, or treacherous, or conniving; so I tend to bore rather easily with yet another one, especially a lame one that is being used to drive public policy. Then, it's not only stupid, it's dangerous.

The "fun stuff" for me in these types of discussions is the intellectual stimulation that comes from digging deep into a topic and analyzing the underlying facts, not trying to figure out why some individual thinks the way he does...which by the way is nothing but guesswork when one has no insight into the inner workings of his mind. Unless, of course, you have an account with Madame Blavutsky and have divined their reasons "why" via her crystal ball. Or perhaps you're using your Magic 8 Ball?

Yeah....I can't understand why I wouldn't unquestioningly accept your position, either.....

I think the more interesting and, ultimately, the most important question in this "debate" is, "given the overwhelming expert opinion supporting ACC why would otherwise intelligent adults go to such lengths to confirm what appears to be a weirdly conspiratorial bias in the opposite direction?" The answer to this question would appear to constitute a significant part of the answer as to why our congress and our government have become completely dysfunctional.

And, yes, of course I think that F/F is a failed attempt at promoting gun control here in the US. "Why"? Because I'm not naive. It's a trust issue: Lord Obama the Generous is a d-bag. He has demonstrated that fact numerous times, in everything he's done, not just F/F. I don't care what he SAYS he's trying to do; I wouldn't trust him as far as I can throw him. Looks like a lot of other people feel the same way. If he has a problem with that, he has no one to blame but himself...next time, he should do what he promised he would when he conned people into voting for him and be a LEADER, not a politician.

That is exactly the position I would expect you to adopt given your views on global warming. That said, although I'm not given to conspiracy theories I do agree with your point that a politician should do what he promised to do when elected. I do think it is a little much to expect a politician not to be a politician, however, as that is an impossibility even for such exemplars as Bernie Sanders or Arkansas’ own Mark Pryor.

But you are missing the point....again. I DON'T CARE "WHY" he did F/F; I care that he was incompetent, careless, and that he broke the law; and now I care that he is just as imperial as Richard Nixon in thinking he's above the law. Those are two separate issues.

If F/F aggravated you I bet you were really pissed off when you found out Bush & Co. lied to get us into a war in the Middle East that actually cost thousands of American lives? I’ve even heard some of that F/F stuff might have started with Bush the Younger. If that’s true, how do you think Obama and his crew were able to persuade Bush to participate in such a plot to submarine the 2nd Amendment before Obama was even close to being president? I thought Bush was a big gun rights guy?[/quote]

[quietmike]

If f/f aggravated you i bet you were really pissed off when you found out bush & co. Lied to get us into a war in the middle east that actually cost thousands of american lives?

500 tons of yellow cake were found in Iraq and shipped to Canada.

I’ve even heard some of that f/f stuff might have started with bush the younger. If that’s true, how do you think obama and his crew were able to persuade bush to participate in such a plot to submarine the 2nd amendment before obama was even close to being president? I thought bush was a big gun rights guy?

That's what happens when you listen to Arianna.

tumblr_m61warLL3N1rugehno1_1280.jpg

[lepto]

500 tons of yellow cake were found in Iraq and shipped to Canada.

So that's why we invaded Iraq? Well, that changes everything. I bet weaponization was imminent, no?

That's what happens when you listen to Arianna.

tumblr_m61warLL3N1rugehno1_1280.jpg[/QUOTE]

Don't listen to Arianna. I see you subscribe to the 2nd amendment angle. What's your position on Anthropogenic Climate Change?

[quietmike]

So that's why we invaded Iraq? Well, that changes everything. I bet weaponization was imminent, no?

You think one of the worlds largest oil exporters was considering nuclear power as a cheaper alternative?

Don't listen to Arianna. I see you subscribe to the 2nd amendment angle. What's your position on Anthropogenic Climate Change?

Too many variables to declare they know what the cause is. CO2 is one of the minor greenhouse gasses, but it is one that would allow government to further regulate behavior.

[timcsaw]

If F/F aggravated you I bet you were really pissed off when you found out Bush & Co. lied to get us into a war in the Middle East that actually cost thousands of American lives?

Isn't it more accurate to say that Saddam told the lies and that Bush & Co. and most of Congress and the rest of the world just believed him?

I’ve even heard some of that F/F stuff might have started with Bush the Younger. If that’s true, how do you think Obama and his crew were able to persuade Bush to participate in such a plot to submarine the 2nd Amendment before Obama was even close to being president?

Nope... different program.

[lepto]

You think one of the worlds largest oil exporters was considering nuclear power as a cheaper alternative?

Are you arguing that Iraq was seriously close to producing atomic weapons such that we needed to waste several thousand American lives preventing the endeavor? And, if that was the case, why didn't Bush parade dump trucks full of the stuff when we took over? And, where was all of the other hardware needed to refine and build a bomb? A good place to start looking for the answers to those questions, it turns out, is snopes.com.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/yellowcake.asp

Too many variables to declare they know what the cause is. CO2 is one of the minor greenhouse gasses, but it is one that would allow government to further regulate behavior.

So, the fact that virtually all of the climatologists working in this field disagree with your position means nothing to you? Have you developed a superior understanding of the issue or are these folks so smart they're dumb?

Isn't it more accurate to say that Saddam told the lies and that Bush & Co. and most of Congress and the rest of the world just believed him?

No, Bush & Co. exploited the emotions generated by 9/11 by lying to us and led us into a disastrous war. Given what we now know, including the current state in which we've left the country (both Iraq and the US), do you think even one American life or dollar should have been expended in Iraq?

Nope... different program.

They sure sound similar. I suppose those big differences shown in quietmike's jpeg are the reason Issa & Crew refused to subpeopna any Bush administration people to find out if there was any linkage of the programs? It was just so obvious that Bush = Good (get evil Mexicans while supporting the 2nd amend.) and Obama = Bad (empower evil Mexicans while, quite sneakily, setting the stage to eliminate the 2nd amend.).

[quietmike]

Are you arguing that Iraq was seriously close to producing atomic weapons such that we needed to waste several thousand American lives preventing the endeavor? And, if that was the case, why didn't Bush parade dump trucks full of the stuff when we took over? And, where was all of the other hardware needed to refine and build a bomb? A good place to start looking for the answers to those questions, it turns out, is snopes.com.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/yellowcake.asp

You didn't answer the question. Why do you think Iraq had yellow cake?

So, the fact that virtually all of the climatologists working in this field disagree with your position means nothing to you? Have you developed a superior understanding of the issue or are these folks so smart they're dumb?

As i've said before, when the produce a fossilized SUV next to the remains of a wooly mammoth, their theories might be more believable. I mean, its not like we've had glaciers in Ohio, that melted, before the industrial revolution.

They sure sound similar. I suppose those big differences shown in quietmike's jpeg are the reason Issa & Crew refused to subpeopna any Bush administration people to find out if there was any linkage of the programs? It was just so obvious that Bush = Good (get evil Mexicans while supporting the 2nd amend.) and Obama = Bad (empower evil Mexicans while, quite sneakily, setting the stage to eliminate the 2nd amend.).

I think the obvious (to some) difference is Bush's program had allthe hallmarks of a sting, and Obama's didn't. Also Bush's didn't result in the death of Americans

[lepto]

You didn't answer the question. Why do you think Iraq had yellow cake?

"The yellowcake removed from Iraq in 2008 was material that had long since been identified, documented, and stored in sealed containers under the supervision of U.N. inspectors. It was not a "secret" cache that was recently "discovered" by the U.S, and the yellowcake had not been purchased by Iraq in the years immediately preceding the 2003 invasion. The uranium was the remnants of decades-old nuclear reactor projects that had put out of commission many years earlier: One reactor at Al Tuwaitha was bombed by Israel in 1981, and another was bombed and disabled during Operation Desert Storm in 1991."

I think the yellowcake was exactly as described in the Snopes quote above which is why it doesn't operate as proof of an active WMD program prior to our invasion.

As i've said before, when the produce a fossilized SUV next to the remains of a wooly mammoth, their theories might be more believable. I mean, its not like we've had glaciers in Ohio, that melted, before the industrial revolution.

Why do you think all of these scientists hold with an opposite interpretation of the facts from your learned opinion?

I think the obvious (to some) difference is Bush's program had allthe hallmarks of a sting, and Obama's didn't. Also Bush's didn't result in the death of Americans

So, I take it you would support delving into the Bush operation, with the same amount of zeal, to confirm your hypothesis?

[timcsaw]

No, Bush & Co. exploited the emotions generated by 9/11 by lying to us and led us into a disastrous war.

Evidence would have to be provided that Bush & Co. knew in advance that Hussein (theirs, not ours) was lying through his teeth (along with a whole lot of other people/Congress/other countries who lied) when he/they repeated the lies told by Hussein. To my knowledge, no such evidence exists so you provide opinion and conjecture not supported by the evidence Counselor.

Hussein (theirs) lied, and the world "bought" his stories (especially the Iranians for whom, IMO, the lies were primarily intended). Otherwise, Bush & Co. were goll-durn geniuses who were much smarter than everyone else (and I don't believe that for a minute).

But... we're off point...

[quietmike]

"The yellowcake removed from Iraq in 2008 was material that had long since been identified, documented, and stored in sealed containers under the supervision of U.N. inspectors. It was not a "secret" cache that was recently "discovered" by the U.S, and the yellowcake had not been purchased by Iraq in the years immediately preceding the 2003 invasion. The uranium was the remnants of decades-old nuclear reactor projects that had put out of commission many years earlier: One reactor at Al Tuwaitha was bombed by Israel in 1981, and another was bombed and disabled during Operation Desert Storm in 1991."

I think the yellowcake was exactly as described in the Snopes quote above which is why it doesn't operate as proof of an active WMD program prior to our invasion.

What program is required to wrap the yellow cake around convention explosives to create a dirty bomb?
No question the yellow cake was not a new development, but Hussein had ousted the inspectors long ago, and 9/11 lowered our threshold of acceptable behavior by known terrorists.

Why do you think all of these scientists hold with an opposite interpretation of the facts from your learned opinion?

With so many vying for funding, one needs to make headlines. Why the snide attitude from you?

So, I take it you would support delving into the Bush operation, with the same amount of zeal, to confirm your hypothesis?

Sure. Are you aware of any American deaths resulting from Bush's operation? I'm sure that would kick things off nicely.

[timcsaw]

So, I take it you would support delving into the Bush operation, with the same amount of zeal, to confirm your hypothesis?

No hypothesis. Fact. F&F was NOT Wide Receiver.

[lepto]

What program is required to wrap the yellow cake around convention explosives to create a dirty bomb?
No question the yellow cake was not a new development, but Hussein had ousted the inspectors long ago, and 9/11 lowered our threshold of acceptable behavior by known terrorists.

I'll accept your obvious reach as agreement with my main point, i.e., we were misled into a disastrous war that cost thousands of American lives and countless American dollars (not to mention tens of thousands of Iraqi lives and continuing destabilization/bloodshed).

With so many vying for funding, one needs to make headlines. Why the snide attitude from you?

I apologize for the snideness. Are you arguing that the need for funding is what drove those 100's of scientists to near universal agreement in ACC? Again, you'll pardon me if I say that is more than a little ridiculous. You are willing to bet your existence and, more importantly, the future existence of your friends and family (not to mention humankind in general) on such an argument? Wouldn't the wiser, indeed, far, far wiser course be to trust the majority and the science they say supports their conclusions, in general, and begin taking serious steps towards mitigation of the affects of ACC? Or, do we just wait until the evidence, like we are seeing now, becomes so overwhelming that even the ostrich's of the world are being consumed by it?

Sure. Are you aware of any American deaths resulting from Bush's operation? I'm sure that would kick things off nicely.

No, but that certainly doesn't mean they didn't occur. I say bring them all in and investigate them evenly and openly with the idea being to let the chips fall where they may. I'm glad to see we also agree on this point.

No hypothesis. Fact. F&F was NOT Wide Receiver.

I would never argue F/F was W/R--after all they have different code names. You will admit, however, they appear to be strikingly similar in operation? Could it be one informed and/or employed personnel that was used on the other? I don't know but I do think, as I told Mike above, we should investigate both with an eye towards actually finding out if there was any real wrong-doing and punishing the wrong-doer's. It shouldn't be, as Issa & Co. have made it, a show trial in an attempt to besmirch a democrat administration, IMHO.

BTW, I understand there is an investigative article in Fortune magazine, which I've not read, that exposes F/F for the manufactured issue/political witch hunt into which it has so obviously and intentionally devolved. Have you had a chance to check it out?

[quietmike]

I'll accept your obvious reach as agreement with my main point, i.e., we were misled into a disastrous war that cost thousands of American lives and countless American dollars (not to mention tens of thousands of Iraqi lives and continuing destabilization/bloodshed).

Hardly an agreement. There was nthing misleading about saying Hussein had WMDs. He has used WMDs on his own people in the past. Eight previous years of ignoring a threat is what allowed 9/11 to happen.

I apologize for the snideness. Are you arguing that the need for funding is what drove those 100's of scientists to near universal agreement in ACC? Again, you'll pardon me if I say that is more than a little ridiculous. You are willing to bet your existence and, more importantly, the future existence of your friends and family (not to mention humankind in general) on such an argument? Wouldn't the wiser, indeed, far, far wiser course be to trust the majority and the science they say supports their conclusions, in general, and begin taking serious steps towards mitigation of the affects of ACC? Or, do we just wait until the evidence, like we are seeing now, becomes so overwhelming that even the ostrich's of the world are being consumed by it?

I am willing to bet that since much more dramatic warming happened in the past before humans began burning petroleum, that warming and cooling cycles are separate from human activities.

I would never argue F/F was W/R--after all they have different code names. You will admit, however, they appear to be strikingly similar in operation? Could it be one informed and/or employed personnel that was used on the other? I don't know but I do think, as I told Mike above, we should investigate both with an eye towards actually finding out if there was any real wrong-doing and punishing the wrong-doer's. It shouldn't be, as Issa & Co. have made it, a show trial in an attempt to besmirch a democrat administration, IMHO.

BTW, I understand there is an investigative article in Fortune magazine, which I've not read, that exposes F/F for the manufactured issue/political witch hunt into which it has so obviously and intentionally devolved. Have you had a chance to check it out?

On the very surface F&F lacks any indication of being a sting. In a legitimate sting, illicit items are either followed by agents or some sort of tracking device is concealed in them to protect the public. Neither of these happened with F&F, both happened with Gunwalker.

What would be the reaction if the DEA introduced tons of pure heroin into the system and traced it back by the deaths it caused? This is exactly what happened with F&F.

[lepto]

Hardly an agreement. There was nthing misleading about saying Hussein had WMDs. He has used WMDs on his own people in the past. Eight previous years of ignoring a threat is what allowed 9/11 to happen.

There was everything misleading about the threat that led to war as you have, tacitly, admitted with the bomb-strapped-to-yellowcake example you have used to justify the Iraq boondoggle. As to ignoring the threat that appears to be exactly what Bush did--right up to the point where he was obliged to interrupt The Pet Goat to begin his run for cover.

I am willing to bet that since much more dramatic warming happened in the past before humans began burning petroleum, that warming and cooling cycles are separate from human activities.

So you think those individuals, who have made the study of climate, and this issue, their life's work, who, presumably, know everything you know and, probably, a whole lot more and who are unanimous in their view that AAC is real and a danger to human existence--that these hundreds of individuals are all just chasing the research dollars and will say any wild-ass thing to get them? That is your argument?

On the very surface F&F lacks any indication of being a sting. In a legitimate sting, illicit items are either followed by agents or some sort of tracking device is concealed in them to protect the public. Neither of these happened with F&F, both happened with Gunwalker.

What would be the reaction if the DEA introduced tons of pure heroin into the system and traced it back by the deaths it caused? This is exactly what happened with F&F.

I don't think we know this is the case at all and, the way this "investigation" has been mishandled and politicized, we will, almost certainly, never know. Have you read the Fortune article?

[Morrow]

Climate change is the topic of this thread. Please stick to it.

[quietmike]

So you think those individuals, who have made the study of climate, and this issue, their life's work, who, presumably, know everything you know and, probably, a whole lot more and who are unanimous in their view that AAC is real and a danger to human existence--that these hundreds of individuals are all just chasing the research dollars and will say any wild-ass thing to get them? That is your argument?

My argument is that we have had the Medieval warm period and we have had melting glaciers long before the industrial revolution and before we radically change everyone's way of life, and spend trillions to boot, they need to provide incontrovertible proof, instead of a theory.

The earth has been self-regulating long before humans arrived on the scene and will do so long after we're gone. We are part of the ecosystem, not separate from it. When we get too burdensome to the planet, the planet will "regulate" us, we don't regulate the planet.

[lepto]

My argument is that we have had the Medieval warm period and we have had melting glaciers long before the industrial revolution and before we radically change everyone's way of life, and spend trillions to boot, they need to provide incontrovertible proof, instead of a theory.

The earth has been self-regulating long before humans arrived on the scene and will do so long after we're gone. We are part of the ecosystem, not separate from it. When we get too burdensome to the planet, the planet will "regulate" us, we don't regulate the planet.

I'm curious as to why something so elemental, so obvious to you is not so elemental and obvious to the experts? You mentioned research dollars as their impetus to mislead the public. Is this really what you think?

[quietmike]

I'm curious as to why something so elemental, so obvious to you is not so elemental and obvious to the experts? You mentioned research dollars as their impetus to mislead the public. Is this really what you think?

Yes, but that probably isn't the only thing.

Remember they were just as sure we would all freeze to death in the 70's.