Hi
This global warming thing that the scientist have come up with to scare us all to go green is a bunch of BS.

Brilliant analysis. . You get from the Farmers Almanac. Or The Jeff Foxworthy version of the Bible?

__________________
Cussing out low class inbreds isnt uninteligent, its honest

Good typing is not inteligent its dexiteritous.

Everything you just said is total bullshit

Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-V8Ek...eature=related

Hi
I got it from the local AM radio talkshow host.

>>>I say we should all shit in our own nest, don't you? Btw, I'd trust scientists more than rattlesnake charmers any day.

Apocalyptic scare tactics from the global warming crowd? Huh, sounds familiar.

I don't like it from the religious crowd and certainly not from the likes of these clowns.

GWers seem only able to offer this projection-related strawman: "deniers" believe that climate and weather are static!!!

Um...no...actually we "deniers" are very well aware that neither climate nor weather are static...they change alladamn time. Always have. Always will.

It's zealous, anti-Western (real issue) religionist GWists who believe that climate and weather can ONLY change because of human activity.

Which is about the most arrogant thing those of us able to think RATIONALLY about this issue can imagine.

But it's what those of you, so driven by your hatred of America and Western, free market society must believe in order to make your claim that humans (mostly American humans) are the primary cause of the tiny little upward spike in mean global temps (din't even come close to the one we saw in the 1930s, or the one in the 1970s) that peaked in 1998.

Anwer me this GWers: how are humans responsible for the apparent, concurrent (with our own) rise in mean global temps on Venus, Mars, Saturn, Uranus and Pluto...AND the apparent avg. rise in temperature (K) throughout the universe?

Tokie

You are misunderstanding.

GW IS a religion.

You can get your scaremongering from religious nuts who are either spiritualists, or secularists.

Sort of like the menu in a Chinese restaraunt...I'll have two from column A, one from column B....

Tokie

LOL.

"The scientists" did not come up with this. Well, a few very politically-active, very anti-American scientists first postulated that human activity could possibly cause climate change. Of course, they were saying "Ice Age," not warming.

Whatever.

The point is that today, if you are a scientist who is either looking for tenure or likes maintaining the easy life tenure provides, and wants to keep the grants coming in, you go along to get along.

Those who "deny" Global Warming and/or that human activity is the primary cause, quickly find themselves off the tenure track, chairing the cleaning supplies acquisiton committee and/or find their grants going to those more...able to see the big picture (using this scare as means to destroy the American economy in particular and to--finally!--destroy free market capitalism.

Tokie

Nunquam aliud natura, aliud sapientia dicit.
- Juvenal, xiv.321.

The cause of global warming has been much debated. The establishment view, supported by corporate-funded research (ExxonMobil), holds that global climate changes are cyclical, over which man, for all his science and invention applied to master the universe, has no control. Opposing this conventional wisdom, there is a growing, and increasingly vocal, opposition who point to pollution (specifically hydrocarbon emissions) in the atmosphere as the cause, and accuse the industrialized nations of “trashing the planet.” And in the politics of the issue - which has nothing to do with science and everything to do with money - the establishment has thus far prevailed. Still, the evidence is mounting; and we cannot long afford to turn a blind eye to what can be plainly seen. The earth is speaking to us, and we should listen - “for wisdom ever echoes nature’s voice.”

I often wonder what it takes to maintain this sort of intellectual fiction.

Basing all of your assertions on strawmen and other logical fallacies seems to work for a...certain segment of the population, but when it buts heads with a more...thoughful segment, it leaves that segment agog.

It is only those clucking on the side of athropomorphic "global warming" who demonstrate the arrogance of the first statement here: ....over which man, for all his science and invention applied to master the universe, has no control."

This assumes that those questioning the "consensus" belive (and it could only be belief) that man has mastered the known universe. I cannot think of anything that could possibly be further from the truth in the minds of those on the opposing side. We are the ones who are quite aware of how very, very little humans understand about much of the natural world and that indeed, we have virtually no understanding of the forces, cycles, factors and natural events that make up the engines of climatic change.

It is those on the Chicken Little side of this debate who dare to believe, who demonstrate the utmost in arrogant hubris to suggest that humans today so closely understand the natural world as to be able to harrumph their certainty that man and only man could possibly be responsible for the impending disaster of "Global Warming" (in all its raging glory of .06-degree C rise in temperature over the past dozen years...).

And here we have true believer in The One True Way turning that completely on its head and projecting his or her own arrogant hubris, the core of his or her belief structure, onto those who believe, nay, know exactly the opposite.

This, if nothing else does to anyone bothering to read this, should prove with some finality that this is not a scientific debate (and has not been for some many years now) but is instead a political and yes, religious debate.

To then stand this more firmly on its head and state without apparent fascetious irony that the "conventional wisdom" is that held by the so-called deniers is the ultimate in arrogance. Has not the UN's panel on "climate" spoken? When's the last time any scientist of note has been given center stage in any meaningful theater to point up the gaping holes in the theory of anthropomorphic "global warming." Do we not hear daily of the "consensus" that "all" scientiest who matter have arrived at? Did not TIME magazine declare that "the debate is over" and did not Science openly state some years ago now that they would accept no further research attempting to refute the idea of anthropomorphic "global warming"? Did not one of the high priests of this religion win both an Oscar and a Nobel Peace Prize for his "work" in bringing this issue to the public fore?

Again I ask: what do you have to do to maintain these sorts of intellectual fictions?

Tokie