Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 142
  1. #26
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    check your six
    Posts
    130
    That's only happening if you look like this




    But I'm guessing you are more Barney like

    Traveling the world to make our family money safe from leftist predators.

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    862
    Quote Originally Posted by Downbound Train View Post
    You really think this "science" isn't political? Wake up man. Just look who pays the scientists. 99% GOVERNMET. Follow the $$. If you are a scientist and your science doesn't fit the socialist, statist, one world government, cap n' trade promoting agenda, NO SOUP FOR YOU!

    Why do you think the "science is settled" anything that disagrees is rejected by those paying the bills.
    i am not blind and i generally agree with you but this specific issue can not be explained away like that, the scientific evidence from many different times, place and agendas is totally overwhelming. anyhow- this all came into the US public conscience (which is when politician start caring about anything) during W's first term, so what they were finding was not what the government wanted to hear (as it did not fit their political agenda- my initial point). it is a scientific issue which has been politicized as it has a bearing on energy policy etc., but the objective hard science is there, and has been for ages. it is rarely talked about without politics unfortunately.

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    in a box on the porch
    Posts
    4,237
    Quote Originally Posted by Tippster View Post
    I think Hawk may be the greatest Troll in TGRs history. Motherfucker is stays on message, dunnie?

    My point is still "Fine, Global Warming is real. Now what?" The answer is not "buy a Prius" or "Get Solar Panels for your outhouse." That doesn't get rid of the carbon that's already up there warming us.

    We're not going to stop using coal and other fossil fuels tomorrow. Don't pretend that we "should" - if you like electricity that's not gonna happen. If we slowly wean ourselves off fossil fuels that will not reverse global warming for over a century, if at all. Convincing a rich country like the US or Germany to switch to carbon neutral energy production is easy compared to saying the same to India. So we all need to understand that Big Oil, Big Coal, and Big Gas aren't going away.

    I say we get Hawk to fly around the stratosphere with a big carbon vacuum thingy.
    Well said.
    And I want to fly around in the CVT.

    When I was in Jr High '75-'77 there was a gerneral scientific consensus that the planet was headed into an ice age.
    And the ozone layer would be none existent by like tomorrow.

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Saneville
    Posts
    13,460
    BREAKING GLOBAL WARMING NEWS....
























    From 1922

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/scien...arming1922.asp

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Bravo Delta.
    Posts
    6,159
    Quote Originally Posted by skiballs View Post
    When I was in Jr High '75-'77 there was a gerneral scientific consensus that the planet was headed into an ice age.
    And the ozone layer would be none existent by like tomorrow.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

    "This hypothesis had mixed support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles, and a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s."

    Quote Originally Posted by Socialist View Post
    They have socalized healthcare up in canada. The whole country is 100% full of pot smoking pro-athlete alcoholics.

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    the edge of wuss cliff
    Posts
    17,239

  7. #32
    ^^^that made me laugh.
    it's all young and fun and skiing and then one day you login and it's relationship advice, gomer glacier tours and geezers.

    -Hugh Conway

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    10,522
    Quote Originally Posted by Tippster View Post

    I say we get Hawk to fly around the stratosphere with a big carbon vacuum thingy.

  9. #34
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Colorado Cartel HQ
    Posts
    16,033
    Most of the dipshits crying about TEH GLOBALZ WARMINZ!!!!! are usually the same douchebags who have 3 kids.
    Follow me on Instagram

    brett.mcnary

  10. #35
    spook Guest
    The precautionary principle states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking the action.

  11. #36
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Eagle County
    Posts
    12,261
    has Hawk EVER posted anything ski related?

    I'll add that people love to get caught up in the who instead of the why. Are fossil fuels bad for the environment overall? Can we find a better way of doing things? Should we be the best stewards of the planet that we can possibly be? If these answers are yes then THAT is what we should be doing....because in the long run it's the right thing to do, NOT because anyone told us to do it or not do it.
    ROLL TIDE ROLL

  12. #37
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Bravo Delta.
    Posts
    6,159
    Quote Originally Posted by Blurred View Post
    Most of the dipshits crying about TEH GLOBALZ WARMINZ!!!!! are usually the same douchebags who have 3 kids.
    Which couple would you suppose understands the science of global warming, and which couple do you think is Downbound Train's family...

    Quote Originally Posted by Socialist View Post
    They have socalized healthcare up in canada. The whole country is 100% full of pot smoking pro-athlete alcoholics.

  13. #38
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    bozone montuckey
    Posts
    4,352
    it's unfortunate that the right tries to justify their agenda by trying to deny the science behind global warming. makes them just look dumb. they should at least be honest and admit that while the science is good, they just dont think its worth it to try to do anything about it. of course most of these same people deny evolution as well.

    sometimes it seems the tea party is just evidence that the decades long republican war on public education is paying them some fantastic dividends.
    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    Ben Franklin

  14. #39
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    121 msl
    Posts
    2,586
    Quote Originally Posted by PaSucks View Post
    This isn't a political issue dumbshit, it's science.
    It's not science anymore than a psychic card reader is science. A Ouji Board has more credibility.

    It's an opinion bought and paid for by left wing politicians who want to fleece the world in the name of global warmingssssssssssssssssssss
    the peasants are revolting

  15. #40
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Shuswap Highlands
    Posts
    2,337
    Talk about divide and conquer. Seems most posts are making the statement that you are either with us or against us'.

    Here's my take, FWIW:

    The 'science of global warming' is is a dubious phrase at best. So far we have very good data on historical cooling and warming periods. We still have a very limited understanding of why those periods of warming and cooling occurred.

    There is an absolute ton of scientific literature about the 'effects of climate change'. All the rage and very easy to get funding for this kind or polarizing research. But none of this actually supports or refutes why the climate is changing. Some good linkages to feedback mechanisms and such, but this is totally based on the available climate models. There is actually very little good science completed on the actual climate change itself. The system is HUGE. There are lots of good pieces of work done on the components - like the effect of greenhouse gasses in a closed system. But the work on other components like oceanic currents, water vapours in the atmosphere, solar and cosmic radiations, etc, etc, is still revealing just how little we understand the system in its entirety. Even the ozone and the size of the holes above the poles is not complete - we still do not know exactly why (let alone predict) how the holes grow and shrink. Our understanding back in the 70's and 80's regarding CFC and the ozone has turned out not to be the total story (at least in the recent published works).

    All of our climate forecasts are based on modeling. Models are only as good as the assumptions they are based upon. We tend to over emphasize those aspects we understand well, and under-estimate those that we do not. Not to mention the tools we have to conduct the models - once again, the system we are describing is HUGE. Even when we put all our historical data into the models, input the calculations and assumptions as we currently understand them, we still can not accurately reproduce the climatic patterns that have already occurred - let alone predict furture climatic events.

    We just can't seem as a society to seperate the science from the politics. We can state how impartial we are in our observations, but when is comes down to it, we are all pretty fallible. Others above have already stated it best. Whenever possible it is advisable to employ the precautionary principle. We should be trying to reduce our consumption of non-renewable resources and attempting to limit human induced reduction to biological diversity. Climate is changing no matter what we are currently able to enact to curb those factors that we are contributing to. Should we be trying to help those who will be most affected by those changes? And by how much? Isn't that what our 'democracies' are for - to enact the social will and priorities of the masses?

    Is human activity affecting our weather? Most certainly. Are humans significantly affecting our current climate cycle? I work in the environmental sciences, have read some fair bit of the literature and attended several conferences whose primary topic was how we should be developing strategy & policy to deal with 'climate change', and i could not honestly give you a straight answer as to how much we humans are affecting the overall climate system. I have my political slant - everyone does and the ones who say otherwise should be the first ones we throw to the wolves - but that is an entirely different arguement.

  16. #41
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Colorado Cartel HQ
    Posts
    16,033
    I'm so glad we finally are having this debate. Why hasn't anyone ever started a thread like this before?
    Follow me on Instagram

    brett.mcnary

  17. #42
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    8,122
    Quote Originally Posted by iscariot View Post
    NOAA State of the Climate Report

    Compiled by more than 300 scientists from 48 countries, including Canada,
    Fuck it, if Canada is in, you can count me in too.

  18. #43
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Flatland, PA
    Posts
    2,859
    What gets lost in this stupid discussion is how it doesn't matter if you believe in GW. The larger goals of the pro-GW people are in line with what we need to do anyways. If you believe in GW the largest problem is energy production and transportation, or more simply fossil fuels. If you don't believe in GW and just want to make money and watch Oprah or whatever the largest problem in society is still fossil fuels and energy production. There are literally an unending number of reasons why fossil fuels just don't work anymore, the most pressing of which have nothing to do with being green or not crapping up earth.

    Additionally I don't understand why it is immediately assumed that this changeover would somehow be bad for capitalism or standard of living, their is alot of money to be made in this shit and you can either be in this market or not. I don't understand why we can't innovate and create and then pimp that shit to the rest of the world, I mean the next dude or gov't that figures out a way to move people around without fossil fuels isn't just rich, to a certain degree we don't have a concept for that kind of power and wealth. Personally I would rather that power and wealth be here in my country and not in China or some other fuck hole.
    You're gonna stand there, owning a fireworks stand, and tell me you don't have no whistling bungholes, no spleen spliters, whisker biscuits, honkey lighters, hoosker doos, hoosker donts, cherry bombs, nipsy daisers, with or without the scooter stick, or one single whistling kitty chaser?

  19. #44
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Saneville
    Posts
    13,460
    Quote Originally Posted by Downbound Train View Post
    BREAKING GLOBAL WARMING NEWS....

    From 1922

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/scien...arming1922.asp
    I didn't bump this thread for the hell of it. I need to know why the Global Warming mentioned in the SNOPES article in 1922 that ended, isn't the same as the Global Warming we had a few years ago which also ended?

    My theory is- It's the same but God realised we didn't have enough one world government globalists to take advantage of you dummies back then so He made it go away for 80 years. Now that there are enough dupes around, God brought it back so the globalists could trick you more successfully.

    It's a conspiracy between God and really rich liberals who want to take over the world, destroy the economy, enslave every human, eliminate the currency so God can bring on THE END OF DAYS from the Book of Revelations.

    I'm sure my explaination will be as logical as anything you GW dorks come up with.

  20. #45
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    18,009
    Quote Originally Posted by Downbound Train View Post
    I didn't bump this thread for the hell of it. I need to know why the Global Warming mentioned in the SNOPES article in 1922 that ended, isn't the same as the Global Warming we had a few years ago which also ended?
    Gee, maybe it's part of the same event and it's ongoing? It's been a known fact for a long time that glaciers are retreating.

  21. #46
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Bravo Delta.
    Posts
    6,159
    Quote Originally Posted by Downbound Train View Post
    I didn't bump this thread for the hell of it. I need to know why the Global Warming mentioned in the SNOPES article in 1922 that ended, isn't the same as the Global Warming we had a few years ago which also ended?

    My theory is- It's the same but God realised we didn't have enough one world government globalists to take advantage of you dummies back then so He made it go away for 80 years. Now that there are enough dupes around, God brought it back so the globalists could trick you more successfully.

    It's a conspiracy between God and really rich liberals who want to take over the world, destroy the economy, enslave every human, eliminate the currency so God can bring on THE END OF DAYS from the Book of Revelations.

    I'm sure my explaination will be as logical as anything you GW dorks come up with.
    Isn't it time for you,... with your Glenn-Beck-esque integrity,... to be "de-briefing" your daughters again?
    Quote Originally Posted by Socialist View Post
    They have socalized healthcare up in canada. The whole country is 100% full of pot smoking pro-athlete alcoholics.

  22. #47
    spook Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by ArmadaBC View Post
    Additionally I don't understand why it is immediately assumed that this changeover would somehow be bad for capitalism or standard of living, their is alot of money to be made in this shit and you can either be in this market or not. I don't understand why we can't innovate and create and then pimp that shit to the rest of the world, I mean the next dude or gov't that figures out a way to move people around without fossil fuels isn't just rich, to a certain degree we don't have a concept for that kind of power and wealth. Personally I would rather that power and wealth be here in my country and not in China or some other fuck hole.
    if you had captured the market and the governments and were making billions a year in profit, why would you give that up? particularly when your singular purpose is to profit.

  23. #48
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    9,400
    Quote Originally Posted by ArmadaBC View Post
    What gets lost in this stupid discussion is how it doesn't matter if you believe in GW. The larger goals of the pro-GW people are in line with what we need to do anyways. If you believe in GW the largest problem is energy production and transportation, or more simply fossil fuels. If you don't believe in GW and just want to make money and watch Oprah or whatever the largest problem in society is still fossil fuels and energy production. There are literally an unending number of reasons why fossil fuels just don't work anymore, the most pressing of which have nothing to do with being green or not crapping up earth.

    Additionally I don't understand why it is immediately assumed that this changeover would somehow be bad for capitalism or standard of living, their is alot of money to be made in this shit and you can either be in this market or not. I don't understand why we can't innovate and create and then pimp that shit to the rest of the world, I mean the next dude or gov't that figures out a way to move people around without fossil fuels isn't just rich, to a certain degree we don't have a concept for that kind of power and wealth. Personally I would rather that power and wealth be here in my country and not in China or some other fuck hole.

    NO ONE wants to talk about reality of the debate; that fossil fuels are running out and it will be much worse if we don't find another source NOW.

    Thanks for making some sense.
    Terje was right.

    "We're all kooks to somebody else." -Shelby Menzel

  24. #49
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    9,715
    Quote Originally Posted by DasBlunt View Post
    NO ONE wants to talk about reality of the debate; that fossil fuels are running out and it will be much worse if we don't find another source NOW.

    Thanks for making some sense.
    That's not the thrust of global warming advocates argument.

    Funny, just saw a thing on one of the discovery/nat geo channels about ice cores. Ice cores have been a big piece of the evidence GW advocates point to as proof of high Co2/temp. correlations and warming trends. Seems that many of the ice cores studied contain ice that has melted over time and re frozen. This melting alters the Co2 (the melting creates higher Co2), and is later read in the ice history. Now how many research depts. around the world have been using the Co2 data from these previously thawed and re frozen cores ? It alters the data that's being used in computer modeling.

    So even if global warming is occurring (which may be naturally occurring) how do you trust the conclusions that have been based on faulty data ?
    "You damn colonials and your herds of tax write off dressage ponies". PNWBrit

  25. #50
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    north by northwest
    Posts
    9,256
    Quote Originally Posted by OSECS View Post
    So even if global warming is occurring (which may be naturally occurring) how do you trust the conclusions that have been based on faulty data ?
    it's easy: you don't. figuring out that the data is faulty is the hard part.

    edit to say that what you describe is perfectly valid scientific process -- you keep digging into the data to find if it makes sense or not given the current theoretical framework. on the other hand your approach is faulty -- you know the answer you want to hear, therefore you're biased towards anything that supports it. if natgeo or discovery operated that way you wouldn't hear any word about re-melted layers in the cores (whatever that may mean) just like you don't hear any pro-atheism views from the pulpit.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •