Global Warming Poll

[Fly_Guy]

Conservation is good. Pollution is bad. The climate changes. Facts all.

Anthropogenic global warming is not a fact. Anthropogenic global warming is a theory that has become a religion. I don't know how else to explain the fervent faith and the myopia it takes to worship a 200 year temperature graph in the face of 4.5 billion years of cataclysmic climate change.

Entrenched climatologists are not scientists, they are incestuous statisticians. They cite each other's work and suppress debate. Their genetic purity will eventually undo them, but for now it's a nice gig. I say good for them, they are proving better capitalists than the evil geologists. While the geologists make a good living, the climatologists are international rock stars!

The earth is becoming flat again. I need another beer.

Good post. My thing is - what we are doing (pollution) is bad. No one can argue that. But some very rich and powerful people stand to make a lot of $$$ if they can convince us to buy carbon credits and drive certain cars and burn certain light bulbs. I promise that sooner or later, some other global crisis will erupt that will be a bigger cash cow, and we'll all panic and panic and buy whatever we are told.

Funny part is, I support many of the measures that the global warming crowd suggest, but still don't subscribe to the panic and fear-mongering.

[flytyer57]

But some very rich and powerful people stand to make a lot of $$$ if they can convince us to buy carbon credits and drive certain cars and burn certain light bulbs.

And some very rich and powerful people stand to make a lot of $$$ if they can convince us to buy their oil and coal fired electricty.

[jjtroutbum]

Hum maybe another good tax scam would be to tax......" cow farts." Oh wait the progressive envioros have already thought of that also.

Follow the money you will find lots of nice new jobs with lots of travel involved when your not too busy trolling a fishing forum.

[gotmuddy]

Hum maybe another good tax scam would be to tax......" cow farts." Oh wait the progressive envioros have already thought of that also.

Follow the money you will find lots of nice new jobs with lots of travel involved when your not too busy trolling a fishing forum.

its all about control.

[Tim Smith]

hmmm. Sometimes, one has to respond, by giving it up as a bad job. I better delete my post about a close of topic - as that point is completely valid.

Never said toxins in the environment were linked to global warming, my point was that they are a more present danger. Already responded to cherry picking - representing both sides (even those that are contrary to your hypothesis) is important. But then again, you can always shout me down. That is a popular trend as well with some. Didn't mean to hurt yer feelers, but there we have it. In 20 years, when a new global hysteria is gripping the planet, we'll have another discussion.

Fly guy.

Your point about toxins was clear. I'm asked you what toxin in the environment is so dangerous and prevalent that we should ignore global warming? More to the point I'm asking why we have to ignore one problem just because another one also exists.

You also didn't respond to the cherry picking issue at all.

You accused Al Gore of cherry picking. Then you said his analysis of global warming data wasn't valid because he didn't (cherry) pick out little pieces of the data set and present those. You're expecting him to cherry pick the data before you'll believe what he says.

I also don't see much hysteria here (although there are plenty of logical fallacies to go around).

[Tim Smith]

I don't know how else to explain the fervent faith and the myopia it takes to worship a 200 year temperature graph in the face of 4.5 billion years of cataclysmic climate change.

Haven't seen much worship of graphs recently that I can recall. I have, however, seen a few studies examining consequences of the current temperature rise. Whatever else is ahead of us or behind us we're going to have to deal with that one.

Entrenched climatologists are not scientists, they are incestuous statisticians.

It would be interesting to know how you decide someone is a scientist....

They cite each other's work and suppress debate.

...when apparently you think scientists shouldn't study the work of people in their field or reject any of the findings of their colleagues?

Do you have a specific criticism or do just want to stand pat with "climatologists aren't scientists".

[Tim Smith]

its all about control.

It's about cooperation...

...and spending the time to actually look at the facts.

[stlfisher]

Well all I can say is we use the warmth created by a greenhouse to help grow plants. This is a fact and it works. It would be impossible for us to dump the same kind of gasses into the air and it not have the same effect.

We should be pumping $200 billion into alternative forms of clean energy. You find the answer you solve the political, environmental, and economic issues surrounding the debate no matter what side you are on.

[gotmuddy]

It's about cooperation...

...and spending the time to actually look at the facts.

Yes, yes....but in the end its about control.

[FishinCricket]

Yes, yes....but in the end its about control.

Or, as usual, it's about someone getting the last word...

Haha, I win!