A massive fuck you to the global warming nutjobs.

[BigDickGuzinya]

I'm really sick of it now,The U.fucking N. wants to have a global warming circle jerk,the congress wants to waste a bunch of money on it,no one can agree what the fuck is going on,Scientists can't agree,everyones a fucking expert.We had a rather lengthy thread about it here, http://www.wackbag.com/showthread.php?t=46635&highlight=gore+movie went about 8 pages with lots of good points,graphs charts,scientific reports,you name it,as usual nobody changed their mind,the people that believe in it still believe and have their experts,the people that think it's crap have the facts on their side and nobody cares.At the very least can't everyone admit that nobody knows for sure? The best thing I've seen so far that makes sense is some older reports and now a new book,that say global warming is a natural phenomenon caused by our very own sun.Looking back quite a ways,every time there is a period of warming there was a corresponding increase in solar flares.If looked at objectively,REALLY objectively,the global environment has so many variables it cannot be predicted.
I wouldn't care but I'm sick of holier than thou fucktards using it for an excuse to tell me how to live.All the leftys want to run your life for you,tell you what kind of car you need,what food is good for you,cradle to grave government run healthcare,it goes on and on.It's the commies and leftists that are scary.Remember what the nickname Nazi is short for? National SOCIALIST party.The russians and chi=coms killed more people than the nazi's all in the name of the greater good.If the global warming nuts get their way,we are in deep shit,all based on faulty science.Never stopped them before tho'.Never let the facts get in the way.

[Newmania]

We're all doooooomed.

[BigDickGuzinya]

Michael Cricton says alot of my points much better than I can.
http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speeches/speeches_quote05.html

[DonTheTrucker]

Michael Cricton says alot of my points much better than I can.
http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speeches/speeches_quote05.html

State of Fear is an incredible book. Too bad it will never be made into a movie. It would be a huge hit.

[burky79]

State of Fear is an incredible book. Too bad it will never be made into a movie. It would be a huge hit.


all of michael crichtons work is amazing. prey was great!

a movie would rule!

[BigDickGuzinya]

State of Fear is an incredible book. Too bad it will never be made into a movie. It would be a huge hit.
Who's in charge of hollywood? You're right,it'll never happen.

[tripwire519]

all of michael crichtons work is amazing. prey was great!

a movie would rule!


+1...

not very realistic but +1 on the book fo sho...

[Bill]

Michael Cricton says alot of my points much better than I can.


Which part is that? The part where he writes

I want it perfectly clear that I believe it is incumbent on us to conduct our lives in a way that takes into account all the consequences of our actions, including the consequences to other people, and the consequences to the environment. I believe it is important to act in ways that are sympathetic to the environment, and I believe this will always be a need, carrying into the future. I believe the world has genuine problems and I believe it can and should be improved.


Which part of that statement aligns with your "Fuck the environment. I'll do whatever the fuck I want to do" attitude?

[B54]

A highly heated argument we hear about almost everyday is air pollution. Environmentalists say that factories, cars, and other combustible engines and machines are polluting are air with increase CO2 and other gases that hurt the ozone, causing global warming (another topic that will be discussed further on). However, studies have shown that SO2 has decreased 80% since 1962, CO levels are down 75% since 1970, NO is down 38% since 1975, and that ground level ozone has decreased 30% since 1977. Environmentalists want us to believe that we are highly affecting the Earth by putting all these gases into it, but that is not the case. However, the biggest issue of the today is global warming. Global warming caused by the consumption of fossil fuels is not as large of a catastrophe as believed. The actual measured temperatures are not increasing as fast as models say they should be, any increase is more than likely to be at the low side of the predictions, and no one believes that can cause a disaster. Also, even if temperatures were to increase exponentially, it will be less costly to adapt to the changes. Most studies have found that it would cost $5 trillion to adapt completely to global warming over the next century. However, cutting back the use of fossil fuel emissions (as suggested by the Kyoto Protocol) is an estimated price of $107 to $274 trillion over the same time period. In conclusion, environmentalists overstate facts in order to get people to submit to their ideas. Although the threat of all the before mentioned things are real, they are not as bad as environmentalists want you to believe they truly are.

Still true.

[abudabit]

Which part of that statement aligns with your "Fuck the environment. I'll do whatever the fuck I want to do" attitude?

Has he ever said "fuck the environment"? I don't think so, I believe he is frustrated at the one sidedness of the 'debate'.

[Bill]

I don't think so, I believe he is frustrated at the one sidedness of the 'debate'.

When the opinions of the scientists who actually do the studies is as one sided as it is with regard to global warming, there shouldn't be any further debate.

[BCH]

I think there is little dispute over the theory that over the last 100 years or so, the earth has warmed somewhat. What is in dispute is the notion that the human race is causing such warming or can do anything about any such warming. For instance, automobile exhaust accounts for some 7% of CO2 released into the atmosphere anually. If we stripped the earth of the automobile altogether, we'd only decrease "Carbon Emissions" by 7%. Would that help? Ask the scientists and they'll shrug their collective shoulders at you. They'd probably say somthing like "It's a start"

[ADD Theater]

The vast majority of scientist agree on global warming. There's a handful that don't. The Bush administration has put a lot of pressure on scientists to change or omit facts regarding global warming. I believe the Dems are pushing to have more of that exposed. When Christie Todd Whitman wanted more environmental controls put in place she got the boot.

In short, I wouldn't drink the Kool-Aid about this stuff not being real. Pretty much everyone in and outside the US says it's happening.

[BCH]

Pretty much everyone in and outside the US says it's happening.

Well, don't forget that europe is dead as a world power. They need this in order to damage the US economy so they can attempt to keep up. And again, what is to be done about it? How much should we curtail carbon emissions? Will Kyoto even make a dent for all the trillions it will cost? Nobody has any Idea.

[BigDickGuzinya]

Meteorologist Likens Fear of Global Warming to 'Religious Belief'

Washington (CNSNews.com) - An MIT meteorologist Wednesday dismissed alarmist fears about human induced global warming as nothing more than 'religious beliefs.'

"Do you believe in global warming? That is a religious question. So is the second part: Are you a skeptic or a believer?" said Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Richard Lindzen, in a speech to about 100 people at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.

"Essentially if whatever you are told is alleged to be supported by 'all scientists,' you don't have to understand [the issue] anymore. You simply go back to treating it as a matter of religious belief," Lindzen said. His speech was titled, "Climate Alarmism: The Misuse of 'Science'" and was sponsored by the free market George C. Marshall Institute. Lindzen is a professor at MIT's Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences.

Once a person becomes a believer of global warming, "you never have to defend this belief except to claim that you are supported by all scientists -- except for a handful of corrupted heretics," Lindzen added.

According to Lindzen, climate "alarmists" have been trying to push the idea that there is scientific consensus on dire climate change.

"With respect to science, the assumption behind the [alarmist] consensus is science is the source of authority and that authority increases with the number of scientists [who agree.] But science is not primarily a source of authority. It is a particularly effective approach of inquiry and analysis. Skepticism is essential to science -- consensus is foreign," Lindzen said.

Alarmist predictions of more hurricanes, the catastrophic rise in sea levels, the melting of the global poles and even the plunge into another ice age are not scientifically supported, Lindzen said.

"It leads to a situation where advocates want us to be afraid, when there is no basis for alarm. In response to the fear, they want us to do what they want," Lindzen said.

Recent reports of a melting polar ice cap were dismissed by Lindzen as an example of the media taking advantage of the public's "scientific illiteracy."

"The thing you have to remember about the Arctic is that it is an extremely variable part of the world," Lindzen said. "Although there is melting going [on] now, there has been a lot of melting that went on in the [19]30s and then there was freezing. So by isolating a section ... they are essentially taking people's ignorance of the past," he added.

'Repetition makes people believe'

The climate change debate has become corrupted by politics, the media and money, according to Lindzen.

"It's a sad story, where you have scientists making meaningless or ambiguous statements [about climate change]. They are then taken by advocates to the media who translate the statements into alarmist declarations. You then have politicians who respond to all of this by giving scientists more money," Lindzen said.

"Agreement on anything is taken to infer agreement on everything. So if you make a statement that you agree that CO2 (carbon dioxide) is a greenhouse gas, you agree that the world is coming to an end," he added.

"There can be little doubt that the language used to convey alarm has been sloppy at best," Lindzen said, citing Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbles and his famous observation that even a lie will be believed if enough people repeat it. "There is little question that repetition makes people believe things [for] which there may be no basis," Lindzen said.

He believes the key to improving the science of climate change lies in altering the way scientists are funded.

'Alarm is the aim'

"The research and support for research depends on the alarm," Lindzen told CNSNews.com following his speech. "The research itself often is very good, but by the time it gets through the filter of environmental advocates and the press innocent things begin to sound just as though they are the end of the world.

"The argument is no longer what models are correct -- they are not -- but rather whether their results are at all possible. One can rarely prove something to be impossible," he explained.

Lindzen said scientists must be allowed to conclude that 'we don't have a problem." And if the answer turns out to be 'we don't have a problem,' we have to figure out a better reward than cutting off people's funding. It's as simple as that," he said.

The only consensus that Lindzen said exists on the issue of climate change is the impact of the Kyoto Protocol, the international treaty to limit greenhouse gases, which the U.S. does not support.

Kyoto itself will have no discernible effect on global warming regardless of what one believes about climate change," Lindzen said.

"Claims to the contrary generally assume Kyoto is only the beginning of an ever more restrictive regime. However this is hardly ever mentioned," he added.

The Kyoto Protocol, which Russia recently ratified, aims to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by the year 2010. But Lindzen claims global warming proponents ultimately want to see a 60 to 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gasses from the 1990 levels. Such reductions would be economically disastrous, he said.

"If you are hearing Kyoto will cost billions and trillions," then a further reduction will ultimately result in "a shutdown" of the economy, Lindzen said.

[frankjg]

The vast majority of scientist agree on global warming. There's a handful that don't. The Bush administration has put a lot of pressure on scientists to change or omit facts regarding global warming. I believe the Dems are pushing to have more of that exposed. When Christie Todd Whitman wanted more environmental controls put in place she got the boot.

In short, I wouldn't drink the Kool-Aid about this stuff not being real. Pretty much everyone in and outside the US says it's happening.

Yeah, its a vast right wing conspiracy maaaaaan :icon_roll

BCH summed it up very well, so there isint much more to say. Global Warming is the new mechanism to revive socialisim and wealth distribution on a global scale.

[BigDickGuzinya]

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html
Usual tactic:attack the accuser instead of defending your position.

[bethm1b]

It is a conspiracy. These people want hundreds of millions of our tax dollars to study this bullshit claim.

[ADD Theater]

Shit, if we want sources then no problem!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6364246,00.html




I don't see why many, many other countries wouldn't sign Kyoto if they didn't believe it.

[wes mantooth]

I don't see why many, many other countries wouldn't sign Kyoto if they didn't believe it.

Kyoto is nothing more than a global socialism initiative. Yes China and India have ratified it but they are not required to reduce carbon emissions under the present agreement. This is in spite of the fact that China is building on average a coal-fired power plant every week and not one of these global warming nuts gives a shit. We would be fools to sign this garbage. Why hinder our economy for the good of the environment when the savage nations have no such restrictions.

[YourAmishDaddy]

" I have said consistently that global warming is a serious problem. There's a debate over whether it's manmade or naturally caused; we ought to get beyond that debate and start implementing the technologies necessary to enable us to achieve a couple of big objectives -- one, be good stewards of the environment; two, become less dependent on foreign sources of oil for economic reasons and for national security reasons.

That's why we're pressing for clean coal technology. That's why the hydrogen initiative is robust. In other words, we want our children being able to drive cars not fueled by gasoline, but by hydrogen. That's why I've been a strong advocate of ethanol as an alternative source of fuel to run our cars. I strongly believe that we ought to be developing safe nuclear power. The truth of the matter is if this country wants to get rid of its greenhouse gases we've got to have the nuclear power industry be vibrant and viable. And so I believe in -- and I've got a plan to be able to deal with greenhouse gases."

George W. Bush June 26, 2006
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/06/20060626-2.html

You're right, the socialists are out to get us.

[wes mantooth]

You're right, the socialists are out to get us.


Bush is more socialist than conservative. It's why his base deserted him. He's right not to support Kyoto though.

[YourAmishDaddy]

Bush is more socialist than conservative. It's why his base deserted him. He's right not to support Kyoto though.

Ah, but if we weren't implementing parts of Kyoto anyway, even if we didn't sign it I'd agree with him. These people say one thing and do another.

[wes mantooth]

These people say one thing and do another.

I agree with this. The assholes never change. Just the faces.

[YourAmishDaddy]

I agree with this. The assholes never change. Just the faces.

Totally.

[abudabit]

Assholes don't have faces, they have asshair.


Let's just be honest. We don't know. We don't know one way or the other. There is evidence for and against. To say you know for sure is to say you are a liar. I'm neither a skeptic nor a believer. The group think is what gets me going on this debate.

[BigDickGuzinya]

Assholes don't have faces, they have asshair.


Let's just be honest. We don't know. We don't know one way or the other. There is evidence for and against. To say you know for sure is to say you are a liar. I'm neither a skeptic nor a believer. The group think is what gets me going on this debate.
There is also strong evidence that we CAN'T know.There are so many variables that make "weather" on a global scale that like you said,we don't know.So the global warming nazi's can blow me.
BTW...anyone know where hydrogen comes from?(pop quiz)

[tar_baby]

i was talking to my parents about these liberal fucks and they said in back in the 70s and 80s people were saying we only have 20 years....what gives?

good thread title...fuck em all

[BigDickGuzinya]

i was talking to my parents about these liberal fucks and they said in back in the 70s and 80s people were saying we only have 20 years....what gives?

good thread title...fuck em all
The fuckstick "experts" were also predicting a coming ice age too.
No answer on the hydrogen? Anyone?

[bethm1b]

I know it has something to do with methane and fossil fuels not alot about it though. I saw something about it on discovery. Isn't methane shit gas?

[Dicktator]

There is also strong evidence that we CAN'T know.There are so many variables that make "weather" on a global scale that like you said,we don't know.So the global warming nazi's can blow me.
BTW...anyone know where hydrogen comes from?(pop quiz)


http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid557.php

Interesting.

[TreeFortRichard]

the only difference is that if you compare a combustion reaction to a steam methane hydrogen generation reaction you will note that steam methane does not use/ reduce the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere. It grabbs the oxygen from H2O and if you look at the CO2 produced by fossile fuels when you burn them for energy you realize they take O2 from the air and produce tons of CO2.


Oh, and I know that global warming is occuring and that we are putting out massive amounts of CO2....so does that make me a fucktard? Becuase I have looked at the evidence and come to a conclusion, we call that science...

[BigDickGuzinya]

http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid557.php

Interesting.
Good Answer!:clap:

[BroGonzo]

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/02_1/polarbrsDM010207_468x762.jpg