Proof Global Warming Exists!!!!

[BeelzeBob]

Originally Posted by Overcast [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Actually, considering recent claims from NASA administration - it seems science is last on the agenda.

http://www.space.com/news/nasa-chief...ft-100707.html

Plus, if there is *anywhere* an agenda or money making scam will take place now - chances are, it's rooted in 'government' somehow.

Government - to me is just about the LEAST trustworthy source of information anymore. So - yeah, I'd be inclined to believe some third-party site first.

Still - that being said, I think we are impacting the environment. but I don't think it will doom us all and I don't think any amount of green taxes will fix it.

EACH AND EVERY Person needs to be conscious and do their own part. Government will fix this problem - just like they fix other problems. They'll demand lots of money, create more red-tape and need more money.

Think this sums up 'government' fixing anything: "Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy."

This perfectly highlights the problems scientists have in communicating with the public.

Originally Posted by Overcast [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I think we are impacting the environment. but I don't think it will doom us all

This was the only claim in your post that speaks to the data, yet judging from the rest of the content, I can only guess that it was not arrived at by scientific means.

[Daywolf]

Originally Posted by guineapig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Also from the same Nasa link:

Originally Posted by guineapig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

To use this as any sort of official evidence of any kind would be to ignore the obvious bias slant that is clearly plastered all over the article. Also, it was written in a very childish manner.

lol you criticize/dismiss the opinion of one link calling it biased but you post a link for the opinion of scientists linked to the UN and think they are not biased. LOL the UN is the most biased and backwards organization in the ENTIRE world! Ohhhh no agenda theeeere [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

And what scientists? Like elementary school scientist teachers? Need a small list of names that say it's bunk? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...global_warming There are an enormous amount of actual scientists that refute global warming actually.

Here is the link that just says it all: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfVwEBkuqts [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[guineapig]

Originally Posted by Overcast [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Government - to me is just about the LEAST trustworthy source of information anymore. So - yeah, I'd be inclined to believe some third-party site first.

So what you are saying is that it's better to trust a website when you have no idea who wrote it or where they are getting their information from? I see. I shall debate you no further.

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

lol you criticize/dismiss the opinion of one link calling it biased

Yes, I do dismiss it. By the very nature of how it was written. Note the areas I put in bold, I don't think much else needs to be stated.

Trying to concentrate on the link in the Nasa article does nothing for your attempt to defend the poorly written agenda-laden Bob Ellis article.

It is a common practice however, to try and redirect people when you can't defend your original point.

[Overcast]

Originally Posted by guineapig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So what you are saying is that it's better to trust a website when you have no idea who wrote it or where they are getting their information from? I see. I shall debate you no further.

Who wrote whatever government page, and what's the agenda?
Do you know who really wrote it? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

How often are politicians honest?

Who has PROVEN they can't be trustworthy. To me - the government has done a fine job - if nothing else - at proving - they can't be trusted.

But no - I wouldn't just take one third part page at face value either.

Most of everything out there - at all, is agenda/money driven anyway. There doesn't seem to be room for 'honesty' at all anymore in politics or 'science' - unless it somehow benefits the bottom line.

[Overcast]

Oh - did I mention I used to work as a government contractor at the EPA? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
My 'opinion' isn't perfect of course - it's purely subjective.

One of the big jokes there was the whole 'freon hurts the ozone' - bullcrap people bought into.
Sure, Freon might hurt the Ozone - only problem is, it's too heavy to get much further than a foot off the ground.

But I digress - I'm not much of a partisan, I'm horribly cynical of politics at all. I just think both sides making all the noise about it, are mostly doing it for profit and not the environment.

Rush is gotta go on about it for ratings, others get big government grants, etc.

[guineapig]

I'm all for questioning government and politicians, but is that really what this thread is about?

Does every government on the planet have something to gain out of tricking the entire world into believing that there is an issue here when really there is none?

It all starts to sound like a reverse Illuminati after a while.

[Daywolf]

Originally Posted by guineapig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So what you are saying is that it's better to trust a website when you have no idea who wrote it or where they are getting their information from? I see. I shall debate you no further.



Yes, I do dismiss it. By the very nature of how it was written. Note the areas I put in bold, I don't think much else needs to be stated.

Trying to concentrate on the link in the Nasa article does nothing for your attempt to defend the poorly written agenda-laden Bob Ellis article.

It is a common practice however, to try and redirect people when you can't defend your original point.

haha the pot calling the kettle black or something like that. You trust UN supported scientists, but I don't. That youtube video has more truth in it's little pinky finger than UN scientists do in all their pat-on-the-head grants combined.

Well I'll see your 1300 UN scientists and raise you 32000+ American scientists:
http://www.petitionproject.org/

[Overcast]

Originally Posted by guineapig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Does every government on the planet have something to gain out of tricking the entire world into believing that there is an issue here when really there is none?

If someone's making a buck off of it, or getting more power and control over people and business - indeed they do have a LOT to gain. No one can honestly say Al Gore hasn't made any 'gains' from it. I'd be much more apt to believe someone who isn't flying a private jet everywhere, leaving his limos idling for hours to keep them cool and buying 9 million dollars mansions, lol.

So yeah - I'm horribly cynical and if there's a core reason I'm cynical - look above at those links [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]


And **Especially** - when corporations and government seem to go ON AND ON about something Ad nauseam and there seems to be a 'push' to make it 'trendy'.

Two other things REALLY bring out the cynicism in me: Government and 'Trends'.

Still - I think we most certainly have a responsibility to our environment and I certainly think we need to develop cleaner and more efficient energy - which brings me to the - maybe core reason I don't buy the hype... I really think cars could be 500 times more efficient than they are now.

Assume - just for the sake of debate - that a technology exists that would allow a standard V8 to get 200 Miles per gallon. Would the oil companies allow that?

So - science aside. I might really be inclined to believe the science in and of itself - it's the 'politics' and such surrounding it, that make me cynical.

[guineapig]

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

haha the pot calling the kettle black or something like that. You trust UN supported scientists, but I don't. That youtube video has more truth in it's little pinky finger than UN scientists do in all their pat-on-the-head grants combined.

Well I'll see your 1300 UN scientists and raise you 32000+ American scientists:
http://www.petitionproject.org/

Again you are redirecting the conversation on to some link on the NASA website. That's all well and good. Did you even read a single page of it?

Also, very nice bullshit link: http://www.petitionproject.org/ Seems super duper legit.
According to the site itself all you need to sign the petition is a Bachelor's degree.
Are you simply trolling now?

(EDIT: I did some fact finding on that link and came up with the following:

Registrant Name:Arthur Robinson
Also runs the following sites:
http://oism.org/
http://www.accesstoenergy.com/view/ate/index.htm
http://www.nutritionandcancer.org/vi...r/s99p1074.htm)




Now how about we talk about my rebuttal to your post? Remember the article you posted that was supposed to contain some shred of damning evidence to support your argument?

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ummm NASA? http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/06/n...lanet-warming/

So first you are trying to use a site that claims that NASA supports your argument. Then you claim that NASA itself is posting false information on its website.


You know what, let me answer my own question: You are trolling.

[guineapig]

Originally Posted by Overcast [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If someone's making a buck off of it, or getting more power and control over people and business - indeed they do have a LOT to gain. No one can honestly say Al Gore hasn't made any 'gains' from it. I'd be much more apt to believe someone who isn't flying a private jet everywhere, leaving his limos idling for hours to keep them cool and buying 9 million dollars mansions, lol.

So yeah - I'm horribly cynical and if there's a core reason I'm cynical - look above at those links [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]


And **Especially** - when corporations and government seem to go ON AND ON about something Ad nauseam and there seems to be a 'push' to make it 'trendy'.

Two other things REALLY bring out the cynicism in me: Government and 'Trends'.

Still - I think we most certainly have a responsibility to our environment and I certainly think we need to develop cleaner and more efficient energy - which brings me to the - maybe core reason I don't buy the hype... I really think cars could be 500 times more efficient than they are now.

Assume - just for the sake of debate - that a technology exists that would allow a standard V8 to get 200 Miles per gallon. Would the oil companies allow that?

So - science aside. I might really be inclined to believe the science in and of itself - it's the 'politics' and such surrounding it, that make me cynical.

See, I can totally respect this opinion and your viewpoint.