Global Warming to Cost TRILLIONS$$

[Duckinla]

so you can just continue on in your little minority group and rely on what other uninformed people tell you.

I'm typically most comfortable in the minority. I get concerned when I share an opinion with the masses. I don't have a ton of respect for the decision making of the masses.

What Bullshit are you talking about? I'm just pointing out that people are condemning the U.S. for not signing an agreement that they don't know jack-shit about. You know why the U.S. didn't sign the agreement? Because they had the most to lose from it. It was unfairly formed. They need to demand that it be more fair. And by the way, it wasn't just Bush. It was Clinton and the entirety of the Senate that were not going to ratify that agreement as it is written.

 

[H2FC]

OOOOPS!!!
From the NOAA website: "Global Warming and Hurricanes"
Direct quote from the article: "...greenhouse-gas induced warming may lead to an increasing risk in the occurrence of highly destructive category-5 storms."
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~tk/glob_warm_hurr.html

======

Ok, how about the Pew Center for Global Change?
"Hurricanes and Global Warming - Q&A "
http://www.pewclimate.org/hurricanes.cfm

From the article: "Sscientists believe that global warming will result in more intense hurricanes"

Also:

QUESTION: When is the typical hurricane season?

ANSWER: The Atlantic hurricane season runs from June 1-November 30, although the peak season is from mid-August through October. An average season produces 10 tropical storms, with 6 becoming hurricanes, 2 of which reach sustained wind speeds at or above 100 miles per hour

============

So tell me again exactly WHO needs to do their research before making an uninformed post??

How old are you??....Do you really think you can get away with taking select quotes and using them out of context?? Go back and read my complete message and see that your referenced info supports everything I said. This ain't gonna be much fun if I find out I'm trying to make a point with a 10 year old........

 

[AnnaS]

A good Michael Crichton book on global warming is State of Fear
http://www.crichton-official.com/fear/index.html

The countless scientific experts he quotes ain the book is interesting reading

 

[GoPC]

I am not an economist.. but... I can assure you

How is this possible?

LOL!

GoPC

 

[JuniperPark]

How old are you??....Do you really think you can get away with taking select quotes and using them out of context?? Go back and read my complete message and see that your referenced info supports everything I said. This ain't gonna be much fun if I find out I'm trying to make a point with a 10 year old........

Select quotes? IT IS THE TITLE OF THE ARTICLE! Sheesh!

I gave you direct quotes directly contradicting your post, including the source YOU referenced, with direct links! Put a fork in it, you're done, you're caught with your pants down, or however you want to put it.

 

[jberryhill]

A good Michael Crichton book on global warming is State of Fear
http://www.crichton-official.com/fear/index.html

The countless scientific experts he quotes ain the book is interesting reading

Michael Crichton writes fiction.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74
Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=76
Bear in mind that joining the anti-science movement now happening in the U.S. (for example, the barely concealed creationism in "Intelligent Design" or the censoring of EPA reports on climate change) is a very popular and profitable thing to do. By actively joining this attack on science, Crichton gets the "Red State" vote, re-affirms people's denial about the bad news climate science brings and provides a new false "authority" for those people to use. And, he makes a lot of money in the bargain.

 

[H2FC]

OK...Juniper lets take a look at this...First is the silly question you repeatedly kept asking about the lack of hurricanes this year and following that is my explaination to you that global warming does not cause MORE hurricanes, it just causes more severe hurricanes. the last part is what you responded with.

"This is a good example of what I mean when I keep telling you to learn a little about your subject before making such silly statements. Most everybody knows (not you of course) the warmer surface waters on the oceans cause more serious and powerful storms. The ocean waters are easily tested for their temperture....its routinely done. NOAA or nobody else to my knowledge has ever said global warming causes MORE HURRICANES. Some climatologists however have said there are strong indications that human-induced global warming could be increasing the average intensity of tropical cyclones, (hurricanes) because of the warmer surface waters although there is no evidence to date that it is affecting the number of hurricanes."

"There are many reasons given why we didn't get more powerful storms this year but on the average for the last several years (I'm not going to look up the exact detail) we have gotten more and more powerful storms than ever before in recorded history. All this is can be verified if you care to look it up.....or you can just disregard it and continue to be uninformed."

Now this is what you responded with...

"Quote:
Originally Posted by dmtalk
This is a good example of what I mean when I keep telling you to learn a little about your subject before making such silly statements. ... The ocean waters are easily tested for their temperture....its routinely done. NOAA or nobody else to my knowledge has ever said global warming causes MORE HURRICANES.

All this is can be verified if you care to look it up.....or you can just disregard it and continue to be uninformed."

Now before we continue, can you see the part you left out?? This is called selecting and taking quotes out of context. This is a "no-no"....you should not do this...its very unfair.

The following is what you wrote in a child like effort to make me look bad:

OOOOPS!!!
From the NOAA website: "Global Warming and Hurricanes"
Direct quote from the article: "...greenhouse-gas induced warming may lead to an increasing risk in the occurrence of highly destructive category-5 storms."
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~tk/glob_warm_hurr.html

======

Ok, how about the Pew Center for Global Change?
"Hurricanes and Global Warming - Q&A "
http://www.pewclimate.org/hurricanes.cfm

From the article: "Sscientists believe that global warming will result in more intense hurricanes"

Also:

QUESTION: When is the typical hurricane season?

ANSWER: The Atlantic hurricane season runs from June 1-November 30, although the peak season is from mid-August through October. An average season produces 10 tropical storms, with 6 becoming hurricanes, 2 of which reach sustained wind speeds at or above 100 miles per hour

============

So tell me again exactly WHO needs to do their research before making an uninformed post??

Mr. Park, I think an apology is in order....and, of course would be accepted if offered in a sincere manner. Please be a little more careful in the future.

How is this possible?

LOL!

GoPC

Do I need to be an economist to assure you of something?? hahaah....that is funny!
Surely you don't expect an answer to such a silly question???...or do you?

 

[GoPC]

I think you get my point... you qualify your statments by first saying you have no idea what you are talking about.

And yet to continue.

It's amusing.

GoPC

 

[Ed30]

Michael Crichton writes fiction.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74
Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=76
Bear in mind that joining the anti-science movement now happening in the U.S. (for example, the barely concealed creationism in "Intelligent Design" or the censoring of EPA reports on climate change) is a very popular and profitable thing to do. By actively joining this attack on science, Crichton gets the "Red State" vote, re-affirms people's denial about the bad news climate science brings and provides a new false "authority" for those people to use. And, he makes a lot of money in the bargain.

People on both sides of the argument are making money out of this. The man-made global warming theory has becoming a major industry in itself.

The US didn't sign Kyoto because they thought the science it was based on was flawed and therefore not worth risking economic instability over.
Now in the UK Tony Blair intends to tax us all into oblivion on an assumption. Just a few days ago he used the "If" word so favoured by the prophets of doom. I quote him "if the science is correct". We're going to get much higher taxes whether it's correct or not. I know of no other government (yet) who would risk the economic stability of it's own country based on the assumption of "ifs" and "whethers" and "maybes" and "evidence suggests" and "could bes" etc...the man-made global warming brigade's favourite words for their "maybe" science which is making them extraordinary amounts of money.

 

[H2FC]

People on both sides of the argument are making money out of this. The man-made global warming theory has becoming a major industry in itself.

The US didn't sign Kyoto because they thought the science it was based on was flawed and therefore not worth risking economic instability over.
Now in the UK Tony Blair intends to tax us all into oblivion on an assumption. Just a few days ago he used the "If" word so favoured by the prophets of doom. I quote him "if the science is correct". We're going to get much higher taxes whether it's correct or not. I know of no other government (yet) who would risk the economic stability of it's own country based on the assumption of "ifs" and "whethers" and "maybes" and "evidence suggests" and "could bes" etc...the man-made global warming brigade's favourite words for their "maybe" science which is making them extraordinary amounts of money.

"IF" I'm standing on the highway and see a mack truck coming straight toward me I might say "IF" that truck hits me I will be dead.....but at the same time I will be making every effort to get out of its way.

Makes sense to me.

 

[Duckinla]

"IF" I'm standing on the highway and see a mack truck coming straight toward me I might say "IF" that truck hits me I will be dead.....but at the same time I will be making every effort to get out of its way.

I'm sorry, that's the most appropriate analogy you could find?

"IF" you think man-made global warming is as sure as a Mack truck on a highway, you have lost all objectivity and are not worth discussing issues with.

Bear in mind that joining the anti-science movement now happening in the U.S. (for example, the barely concealed creationism in "Intelligent Design" or the censoring of EPA reports on climate change) is a very popular and profitable thing to do.

I think the "popular" thing you are referring to is a more general stance that we will no longer follow the left side of this country down the wrong path. We're just tired of being mislead. We didn't have a new ice age. Ronald Reagan didn't get us all killed. Welfare reform didn't put people on the streets. Softening up on crime actually raised crime rates. Forced school bussing was a really friggin bad idea. Public schools really are run poorly. We're just a little sick of the left being dead wrong in their grand schemes. If we're going to go down the wrong path, it's going to be one of our own choosing.

 

[Irish31]

I think there is enough evidence out there to quash the idea that the system we use for energy right now is good for the environment, and ultimately, us as humans.

I'm not really concerned what contributes to Global Warming, just the negative effects our emissions have on all of us. If we can cut that down and move towards more energy efficient/friendly sources, we should start doing it NOW.

With that said, there is alot of red tape surrounding it, and i'm sure the US was concerned, since it's such a big player in this, that signing on may mean they get stiffer targets to reach, which then could cause problems when they may not have come even close to hitting it.

All I think of, is if the US spent the money they have on Iraq, and instead put it into this initiative...


We'll figure it out. It's a Global effort. Even the countries that did sign on, most are not reaching their targets for emissions cut backs so.


Jay

 

[GoPC]

So get off your computer and save some electiricty.

That way, you wont be exposed to the Leftist indoctrination you are apparently addicted to and perhaps see the real world for a change.

How many more resources did we waste on 9/11? How many lives? How much pollution did 100's of thousands of gallons of buring Jet Fuel and Crumbling buildings and dead flesh put into our atmosphere? How much equipment? How many firetrucks, police cars, ambulences, hospitals, shelters, homes were burning resources 24 hours a day for the hours, days, weeks and months after the attack on US soil?

Do you think it's the US the terrorists hate? Be careful how you answer that, because it's not about the Coutry, it's about Democracy... and last time I checked, Canada was a free country too. The only difference is, Canada doesn't REPRESENT democracy.

It's easy for you to sit in the shadow of the world's super power and be illcontent... a protected neighbor. Knowing all the while that even though you are ungreatful and self-centered, that the good 'ol US will be there in a heartbeat to back you up if it every came to it. That "FREEDOM" you feel is the US spending its vast resources to take the fight to the terrorists WHERE THEY ARE, rather than sit quietly and wait for them to attack here once again.

You are for conservation... how about conserving LIVES? How about NOT having another 9/11?

Oh yeah, I forgot... if it doesn't effect you personally, than it doesn't count.

I'd wager that while you sit in your heated home, driving your car, reading your paper, cooking with grease, drinking your beer, wearing your leather shoes, consuming countless resources, you never once think about the friends I lost that day, their contributions to the PRODUCTIVITY of this country or the resulting resources they provided to our neighbors around the world.

I appreciate that you think they are worthless and not worth fighting for. I appreciate that you take their deaths for granted. I appreciate that you accept our unfailing support without question. I appreciate that you have the freedom to speak your mind and to disagree.

But to put the "hypothetical" consideration of an unfounded and oten proven inaccurate account of politically motivated, money grab you call Global Warming over the KNOWN reality of terrorism and the deaths of countless Americans on 9/11 and the sacrifice of those that are willing to DIE to allow you to snub their character...

is Perverted.

There was a campaign put forth in the Forrests of the Pacific North West some 15 years ago or so... It's tag line was:

"Save an Owl, Kill a Human"

The sad thing is that, like you, these people actually BELIEVED they were doing the right thing.

This is my lst post to or about you. Doing my part to save the World... I am conserving my electrons for more important things.

GoPC

 

[jberryhill]

I'm not really concerned what contributes to Global Warming, just the negative effects our emissions have on all of us. If we can cut that down and move towards more energy efficient/friendly sources, we should start doing it NOW

Nail. Head. Bang.

Entirely independent of whatever one thinks of global climate change, moving toward a sustainable energy economy has independent merit.

If country X can produce Y units of GDP using Z units of energy, then it will beat any country using A units of energy where A>Z. Hands down.

 

[Duckinla]

Well I think that's something most rational people could get behind. I think many people are just concerned that they're being sold a bill of goods with the idea that we can control global warming. It would be more effective to sell the control of pollutants for other reasons. California got behind pollution control long before global warming was even an idea.

 

[Irish31]

GoPC, are you on drugs or something?

Most of your country does not even support the war in Iraq any longer. How the hell do you manage to twist everything into Politics and War?


Stop posting here if you won't stay on topic and discuss the merits or lack thereof, with reducing emissions/Global Warming.

Edit: "This is my lst post to or about you. Doing my part to save the World... I am conserving my electrons for more important things." GoPC

This is almost too good to be true. Stick by your word then and don't point any of your mindless, off-topic ranting at me. I don't direct any of my posts at you, but on topic. You do the same then.

Jay

 

[Duckinla]

I still support the war in Iraq. I don't believe in quitting because things are difficult. I don't like that people decide a contest is won or lost just part way through. Last year the USC football team would have lost 6 games if they had pulled the plug at half-time. Instead they played down to the last second in the national championship.

 

[Irish31]

Everyone is totally entitled to their opinion on that.

But you, of all people, who has a strong public interest with Politics, knows how fast a hot topic like that can become a powder keg discussion.


You make alot of good discussion starter topics on Politics. That is the LAST thing I want this thread to turn into. I respect anyone's opinion on being for/aganist any war that is going. But I really don't want to see this thread turn into it.

Yes I made a small reference to the war, but I don't think that's a pre-req to take the thread off topic. What GoPC did above, might be.

Back on topic, I read somewhere that at our current consumption rate, by 2050 (may be wrong on the date) we would need 2.5 Planet Earths full of resources to sustain human life.

I wonder if we can cut that figure down by moving towards alternative energy resources by then. That figure is nuts.


Jay

 

[Duckinla]

I wonder if we can cut that figure down by moving towards alternative energy resources by then.

I was thinking we could cut that figure down through war!

These threads always go off topic. But this one ran it's course pretty quickly before it went off topic. I think we all agree on improving the way things are done. I think we just disagree on whether or not global warming fears should be the reason for doing it.

 

[GoPC]

I will stick around for entertainment value. I cannot express how much fun it is to watch Jay chase his tail and lie to himself and deny his own postings

GoPC