Cleveland weathermen downplay Global Warming

bubbamackdaddy69

Kann wrote:

I haven't heard one scientific source saying we should panic. That's a politician job. What the scientific community is saying is that we should consider changing our habits and the way we live our lives quickly because we don't know for sure what will be the consequences of global warming (or the massive releasing of greenhouse gasses if you dislike the expression "global warming").
On the original post, how do they expect to be taken seriously when they can't even get the age of the earth right?

I've heard some scientific sources that have said the panic word. Not sure of the names but I don't write all my details on a notepad..lol.. and well Politicians have..
Anyhow..no arguements from me on the fact that we can be cleaner to our environment and such but not buying into the theory of Global Warming and that we are heading for complete environmental chaos in 20-30 or 50 years.

SundaySilence

bubbamackdaddy69 wrote:

You may or may not agree with this but my point is and always has been that there is no "Conclusive" evidence om all of this shit..
Here some words from the NATIONAL CENTER FOR POLICY ANALYSIS

The NATIONAL CENTER FOR POLICY ANALYSIS is a right wing think tang funded by Exxon.

Pearl Jam and toast

LikeAnOcean wrote:

See, I'm cool with the fact it might not be as big of a deal as people make it to be, it just irritates me when people completely deny the fact that the earth is getting warmer. Our fault or not, disaster or just more summertime weather, temperatures over the last hundred years have been on the rise.

And even more annoying are the ones who deny everything and then say "and I won't change the way I live because of it".. meaning.. fuck it, let's pollute the fuck out of this planet. (miller..... :rolleyes: )

bubbamackdaddy69

SundaySilence wrote:

The NATIONAL CENTER FOR POLICY ANALYSIS is a right wing think tang funded by Exxon.

Oh ok...so Liberals are more right than conservatives..ok I got ya

sourdough

bubbamackdaddy69 wrote:

You may or may not agree with this but my point is and always has been that there is no "Conclusive" evidence om all of this shit..
Here some words from the NATIONAL CENTER FOR POLICY ANALYSIS


Scientists do not agree that humans discernibly influence global climate because the evidence supporting that theory is weak. The scientific experts most directly concerned with climate conditions reject the theory by a wide margin.

A Gallup poll found that only 17 percent of the members of the Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Society think that the warming of the 20th century has been a result of greenhouse gas emissions - principally CO2 from burning fossil fuels.

Only 13 percent of the scientists responding to a survey conducted by the environmental organization Greenpeace believe catastrophic climate change will result from continuing current patterns of energy use.

More than 100 noted scientists, including the former president of the National Academy of Sciences, signed a letter declaring that costly actions to reduce greenhouse gases are not justified by the best available evidence.
While atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by 28 percent over the past 150 years, human-generated carbon dioxide could have played only a small part in any warming, since most of the warming occurred prior to 1940 - before most human-caused carbon dioxide emissions.

I'm not familiar with those organizations, but someone made the assertion that they may be linked to oil companies/political agenda groups. I don't know whether that is grounded or not, but there is a large number of the most outspoken skeptics do have oil company links...

My opinion is based on my own scientific understanding of the phenomenon (my degree is in environmental geography and environmental ed) I'm no expert but I am informed. Furthermore, I have studied the scientific literature and there a loud absence of research that is disupting climate change. No where in any of the scienific journals is there literature debunking climate change because there aren't any skeptical researchers who have found anything worth publishing.

sourdough

bubbamackdaddy69 wrote:

Oh ok...so Liberals are more right than conservatives..ok I got ya

I don't think the point is that liberas are more right, I think if there is a paper trail to organization with a clear agenda, then it compromises the legitimacy of the report. It goes both ways. If liberal corporations were funding certain organizations, you should be skeptical of those too.

sourdough

.....................

bubbamackdaddy69

sourdough wrote:

.....................

I'd discuss this more but I have a date in 45 mins so I gotta jet...
It's good for the mind to have a fair debate as long as both sides agree to disagree in the end and have an open mind..
I'll post later after my date...hopefully tomorrow morning..haha..LOL....

SundaySilence

sourdough wrote:

I don't think the point is that liberas are more right, I think if there is a paper trail to organization with a clear agenda, then it compromises the legitimacy of the report. It goes both ways. If liberal corporations were funding certain organizations, you should be skeptical of those too.

page 6

http://www.exxonmobil.com/corporate/files/corporate/giving04_publicpolicy.pdf

Exxon gave $225,000 to the NATIONAL CENTER FOR POLICY ANALYSIS from 2003-2005.

sourdough

bubbamackdaddy69 wrote:

I'd discuss this more but I have a date in 45 mins so I gotta jet...
It's good for the mind to have a fair debate as long as both sides agree to disagree in the end and have an open mind..
I'll post later after my date...hopefully tomorrow morning..haha..LOL....

Good luck with your date Its good to get different opinions and perspectives.

SundaySilence

bubbamackdaddy69 wrote:

Oh ok...so Liberals are more right than conservatives..ok I got ya

Reasonable people would be wary of the talking points from any thinktank, liberal or conservative.