MSNBC: The Truth About Denial (GW related)

[portisizzle]

Is it because you know what the data shows,

You owe it to yourself to research temperature reading for the past 100 years or so. Draw your own conclusions.

[portisizzle]

The amount of Co2 in the atmosphere has a direct correlation to temperature.

I hear plants like Co2......why is Co2 BAD BAD BAD??

Oh and you can not prove that Co2 "increases" global temperature.

[Larry]

This country is capable of great things if we put our minds to it. Ideally we need something like the Apollo Program focused on energy independence. This challenge presents a great opportunity for human society to evolve. This kind of a push to evolve is certainly more desirable than nuclear war.

Wow.

What a great lead-in to Larry's Favorite Idea: Space Colonization.

Complete energy independence. Zero pollution (not even water or CO2). Pays for itself.

Link.

[portisizzle]

Wow.

What a great lead-in to Larry's Favorite Idea: Space Colonization.

Complete energy independence. Zero pollution (not even water or CO2). Pays for itself.

Link.

Well tell me how we are going to have the time and resources to colonize space while we are playing tiddly winks with Mother Nature?

This is the real problem in all of this. We are spending precious time and money trying to solve a problem that has no solution. We would be better served investing brainpower and the trillions of dollars it will take doing something relevant.

Of course Liberals, desparately trying to create this social utopia, will continue to insist that we grovel on all fours so we can make the sun gods cool their heels. It is quite pathetic.

[PeterMP]

My good friend this is the same argument that would support your global warming assertion. Have you heard of island warming effect?

Yes, but it isn't the cause of global warming. The fact of the matter is that the poles, where there is no urban enviroment are the areas warming the fastest. Beyond that think of it like this:

During the dust bowl the temp went up in Topeka (just as an example and completely made up), but no significant change in the temps in Washinton DC (again a demonstrative point), much less in Tokoyo. The amount of urbanization in Washington DC, Tokoyo, London, and Paris hasn't changed much over the last 30 years or so, but we know independently that the temps there are all increasing.

[Larry]

America was once a rainforest jungle. It will be again. America was also under ice. It will be again.

And it will not matter to the Earth how many miles I run in my Ford Excursion burning fossil fuel.

Yep, you're right.

Having Man dump half a billion tons a year of pollution into the atmosphere cannot possibly have an effect on the environment. The fact that the Earth's climate is changing, at a rate which, as near as we can tell, is hundreds of times faster that ever before, at the same time that this pollution is occurring is merely a coincidence.

Obviously, we should not only continue with this pollution, we should continue increasing the rate at which we do so.

And there's no proof that smoking causes cancer.

[chomerics]

You owe it to yourself to research temperature reading for the past 100 years or so. Draw your own conclusions.

I have researched the actual data from the past 100 years as well as the past 100, 1,000, 10,000 and 100,000 years. What the data shows is that the earth's temperature is increasing as a faster rate than ever seen in the recorded history of the planet. It actually goes back a few million years, as they can gather environmental data from core samples. In other words, the slope of the temperature is increasing faster than ever recorded, and there are no signs of it reversing trend.

I find it laughable that you actually use the phrase "do your own research" when it is you who lacks the scientific background, and knowledge to actually understand the data, as well as comprehend it's meaning. Those of us with scientific degrees will tell you that you need to open up your eyes, and stop listening to propagandists with an agenda towards big business because they are lying to you.

Here is a little exercize. Find me a couple of INDEPENDENT scientists who do not have a vested interest in big oil or energy. In other words, find me a scientist, who on his own, has come to the conclusion that we are not warming, and show me where he gets his funding from. I will guarentee you that almost every scientist you see who is an anti-global warming cultist is tied to big oil, or big energy.

[PeterMP]

I hear plants like Co2......why is Co2 BAD BAD BAD??

Plants do like CO2, but they aren't able to take CO2 out as fast as we are putting it into the atmosphere. CO2 (and other green house gasses) levels are increasing in the atmosphere and nobody doubts that.

Oh and you can not prove that Co2 "increases" global temperature.

The science behind it is old and good. From the 1890's:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/18/Arrhenius.pdf

[portisizzle]

Yes, but it isn't the cause of global warming. The fact of the matter is that the poles, where there is no urban enviroment are the areas warming the fastest. Beyond that think of it like this:

During the dust bowl the temp went up in Topeka (just as an example and completely made up), but no significant change in the temps in Washinton DC (again a demonstrative point), much less in Tokoyo. The amount of urbanization in Washington DC, Tokoyo, London, and Paris hasn't changed much over the last 30 years or so, but we know independently that the temps there are all increasing.

And again I say that when the Poles do melt....it will not be the first time it would have occurred. And are we to ignore the impact that solar energy has on our climate. Because to swallow the "global warming story" hook line and sinker you have to pretty much ignor all eternal influences upon the Earth. Inclusing the one external influence that actually HAS the ability to make drastic changes on global temperature.

[Vinnick]

Might help if acres of rainforest weren't being slashed and burned. Maybe some of that could help process the C02. Nah, its probably the rainforest's own fault that it didn't make itself deadly to cut or burn.

[chomerics]

Well tell me how we are going to have the time and resources to colonize space while we are playing tiddly winks with Mother Nature?

This is the real problem in all of this. We are spending precious time and money trying to solve a problem that has no solution. We would be better served investing brainpower and the trillions of dollars it will take doing something relevant.

Yea, like Iraq :doh: That was a good 1/2 trillion spend huh. What have we done except kill American soldiers, alienate the entire Middle East, create a terrorist training ground and boost recruitments for the terrorists? Oh yea, it is going to be the hotbed of democracy. . .it's a hotbed alright, we made it a hotbed nursery for terrorists.

Of course Liberals, desparately trying to create this social utopia. . .it is quite pathetic.

And conservatives are not trying to do that in Iraq right now? Conservatives are not trying to do that with the FCC? With Terry Schaivo? They are not trying to do that with abortion as we speak? What a joke your arguments have become Portis, I used to enjoy debating you, but now your arguments are so ludicrous, a 3rd grader would be embarrassed saying them.

[PeterMP]

And again I say that when the Poles do melt....it will not be the first time it would have occurred. And are we to ignore the impact that solar energy has on our climate. Because to swallow the "global warming story" hook line and sinker you have to pretty much ignor all eternal influences upon the Earth. Inclusing the one external influence that actually HAS the ability to make drastic changes on global temperature.

There are multiple studies that now that have concluded that solar output can not solely explain the increase in global temps we are seeing. I can post pdf's to them if you'd like (and have done so before).

Anyway, I'd like to make a point. You are doing the same thing all global warming foes do. You are presenting a moving target. You say one thing explains the problem (urban islands), and I refute that so you move to another explanation (increase solar output) (which I can also refute and post studies to back it up), and then undoubtedly you will move to another.

[portisizzle]

I have researched the actual data from the past 100 years as well as the past 100, 1,000, 10,000 and 100,000 years. What the data shows is that the earth's temperature is increasing as a faster rate than ever seen in the recorded history of the planet.

Stop right there. If you have researched global temperature through history than answer my simple question. Has America been under ice in our past. Has America been a tropical rain forest in our past?

Oh and "recorded" history can not possibily give you evidence of a global warming event that has last only a couple of decades. How can you say with a straight fact that this is the first time in Earth's history that we have had a warming event such as we have had over the past 10 years with a straight face? :laugh:

[Larry]

Well tell me how we are going to have the time and resources to colonize space while we are playing tiddly winks with Mother Nature?

But wait a minute. It seems like only a few minutes ago, you were making the blanket declaration that man couldn't possibly be causing any change in the Earth.

Now you're saying that we can't possibly start a 20-year program that will lead to the US being completely energy independent, because we don't have 20 years?

Aren't you the same person who, on page one, was complaining that some people can't get their story straight?

This is the real problem in all of this. We are spending precious time and money trying to solve a problem that has no solution. We would be better served investing brainpower and the trillions of dollars it will take doing something relevant.

So your points are

1) There's nothing that can be done to solve the problem.

2) And we should be focusing on solving the problem.

Of course Liberals, desparately trying to create this social utopia, will continue to insist that we grovel on all fours so we can make the sun gods cool their heels. It is quite pathetic.

Whereas the "Conservatives", will be groveling to their Priests to protect them from The Straw Man, while doing nothing?

[Predicto]

Portisizzle doesn't have to provide any proof. He is the denier.

Just as in the evolution-creationism debates with our friend Skinsfan51, it is OUR job to provide all proof, and do it to to HIS satisfaction.

It is his job to keep moving the goalposts.

[Vinnick]

portisizzle is a dude?

[portisizzle]

portisizzle is a dude?

Caucasian Male in his mid thirties with three kids and a wife. Two dogs, house on the hill..........

[Vinnick]

Dude, my bad. I just imagined this soccer-mom with a 15 year old Mini-van and a "W" sticker that wasn't on straight.

My apologies.

[chomerics]

Oh and "recorded" history can not possibily give you evidence of a global warming event that has last only a couple of decades.

Oh yes it can, maybe if you were a scientist, or knew how science worked, than you would understand just how it is possible to tell what the average temp was 78,932 years ago. We can tell, and we do have the eveidence.

How can you say with a straight fact that this is the first time in Earth's history that we have had a warming event such as we have had over the past 10 years with a straight face? :laugh:

I didn't say in "earth's history" Portis, I said in RECORDED history :doh: Maybe you don't understand the concept of a balanced ecosystem, actually, I KNOW you do not understand the concept. . .but at least TRY to comprehend what we are saying, and stop telling us what we believe in, because you don't know.

[portisizzle]

Portisizzle doesn't have to provide any proof. He is the denier.

Just as in the evolution-creationism debates with our friend Skinsfan51, it is OUR job to provide all proof, and do it to to HIS satisfaction.

It is his job to keep moving the goalposts.

All I ask is for someone to research temperatures over the past 100 years and then say with a humble heart and a straight fact that we have never seen temperatures such as these.

I will not move goalposts. But it is up to you to make the field goal.

The only way that will happen is if you look at this "global warming" with an objective eye instead of an eye of the politician.

[PeterMP]

Stop right there. If you have researched global temperature through history than answer my simple question. Has America been under ice in our past. Has America been a tropical rain forest in our past?

In the past, there have been extreme changes in temp, but that doesn't mean that there should be one know, and even if it is a natural phenomena (which it isn't because as I've already said solar increase doesn't solely explain the observed warming), that doesn't mean we can't have some impact on it. Much of the Netherlands used to be under water, now they have real cities there, and that was done hundreds of years ago. If we were able to do that then, what makes you think we can't at least somewhat control our climate by changing our atmosphere.

And yes, I think we can have that type of global affect, and I've given one example in this thread (global cooling), we are doing another (global warming), and we've done a third (ozone depletion), in the last two cases, our activities were having an affect that would have had global consequences if we continued. We changed our behaviour and the problem was slowed (ozone depeltion) or went away. Those are two examples, the current warming trend should be a third.

[portisizzle]

Dude, my bad. I just imagined this soccer-mom with a 15 year old Mini-van and a "W" sticker that wasn't on straight.

My apologies.

That's OK. I was imagining you as some hippy freak driving a Hybrid SUV thinking you are actually making a difference in our environment.

My apologies.

j/k.

[Vinnick]

Close. I work for the NPS.

[portisizzle]

Oh yes it can, maybe if you were a scientist, or knew how science worked, than you would understand just how it is possible to tell what the average temp was 78,932 years ago. We can tell, and we do have the eveidence.

Then show me evidence of a twenty year warming event did NOT happen 78,932 years ago. Good luck.

[Larry]

BTW, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the thread starter. How he knew that we'd all be seeing such a firsthand demonstration of the thread's topic (The Truth About Denial) I'll never know, but he obviously planned the whole thing.

I'm wondering if Portis was in on the plot, or something.