Software

General discussion

Locked

What About Global Warming?

By FluxIt ·
I read through several Global Warming threads and saw many things that were curious. Then I came across this article:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

While I have not made a decision on the human contribution to Global Warming, I have a tendency towards a neglible impact. I believe that Global Warming is a natural process and that the natural has a greater impact on the climate than human influence. Certianly, humans cause an impact but it is usually a whisp in the spanse of time and space.

What do you think about the article?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Wittiness is a poor substitute for intelligence.

by Absolutely In reply to hehe

So, you claim maxwell edison also holds an ideology of fear & guilt do you? You claim that he resorts to force & manipulation?

and they attempt to place the fear of God ... I mean the fear of doom delivered by the hands of the devil. And lack of democracy is evil. But there's hope, for one can be converted; they use guilt to convert; they use fear to convert, especially the fear of the unknown; and they use force and manipulation to convert.

That's a witty bit of word play, jck, but the facts are that ecochondriacs are for more taxes and less freedom and that maxwell edison is for lower, and fewer taxes and more freedom. Oh, and I do believe that the time is running out for your magic word 'greed'. Christians of the even-slightly-intellectual kind are becoming aware of the subtleties of meaning of the original form of the various stories to which you refer, and pursuit of personal happiness is not evil.

Collapse -

"the facts are that ..."

by deepsand In reply to Wittiness is a poor subst ...

not all that you would call "ecochondriacs" fit your description, but that they do ask that humans recognize that they do not own the Earth, but merely hold it in trust, and, accordingly, have a responsibility to its good care.

Collapse -

re: "they do not own the Earth" - Are you owned by it?

by Absolutely In reply to "the facts are that ..."
Collapse -

Does the absence of one necessarily imply the other?

by deepsand In reply to "the facts are that ..."
Collapse -

Actually...you're right in one aspect...

by jck In reply to Wittiness is a poor subst ...

BTW...you're saying I said those things about Max...when...I did no such thing.

It was just to show that those who Max puts on a pedestal (such as the Bush administration) serve their own propaganda and speel as much $hit as the nutty left wing environmentalists.

So...why the f*ck are you ranting on about?


BTW...just for your information:

Iraqis never pursued democracy.
Iraqis never pursued taking out Saddam.
Iraqis never pursued having Halliburton get a $5,000,000,000 no-bid contract to fix petroleum assets.

The Bush Administration has forced those things upon the Iraqi people and the American taxpayer.

Q: Can you guess who still holds tens of millions in stock in Halliburton?

A: Vice President **** Cheney.


If the shoe was on the other foot and those in the Arab world came into the United States and forced us to take Islam as the state religion and accept monarchies and dictatorships...you'd be pitching a fit.

Q. So...why is it so different you don't go haywire about us doing it to them?

A. Cause you're the typical, pious American who thinks we do no wrong. That's why.

What the Bush administration has done has nothing to do with doing what makes the Iraqi people happy and everything to do with funnelling off money to give to their buddies in big business at the expense of the American taxpayer.

Facts are that "ecochondriacs" want more taxes to pay to correct the environmental hazards, the majority of which are caused by large corporations who have no commitment other than to padding their own pockets. Absolutely true.

And what has big business done? Over the last decade, lined the pockets of the Republican party mostly. Go check out campaign finance for the past decade.

What has that done? The Republican controlled congress and White House through 2006 wrote tax changes that mostly benefitted, tax wise, the upper 3 percent of wage earning Americans.

Q. And can you guess who runs all those big corporations that line their pockets?

A. Members of the top 3 percent of wage earners.

Good ole boy politics at its finest.


Oh...one last thing:

Real Christians, unlike Bush, won't stab others in the back to fulfill their own desires and wants.

Christian = being like Christ. Remember that, oh great soothsayer.

Christ died for his cause...he didn't send over 2000 people to die for him.

Collapse -

Envy at its worst

by sn53 In reply to Actually...you're right i ...

jck said, "Q: Can you guess who still holds tens of millions in stock in Halliburton?

A: Vice President **** Cheney."

Really? Can you prove this? It seems very unlikely. Usually upon attaining any high office all of one's stocks go into a blind trust. I would be very surprised if Mr. Cheney knows what stocks are held in his name until he leaves office.

Collapse -

Envy? Assumes facts not in evidence.

by deepsand In reply to Actually...you're right i ...

No surprise there.

Collapse -

Assumes facts not in evidence

by Absolutely In reply to Actually...you're right i ...

Q. So...why is it so different you don't go haywire about us doing it to them?

A. Cause you're the typical, pious American who thinks we do no wrong. That's why.


Heh-heh, you should see some of what I've posted about Iraq. You assume too much.

What the Bush administration has done has nothing to do with doing what makes the Iraqi people happy and everything to do with funnelling off money to give to their buddies in big business at the expense of the American taxpayer.

Facts are that "ecochondriacs" want more taxes to pay to correct the environmental hazards, the majority of which are caused by large corporations who have no commitment other than to padding their own pockets. Absolutely true.


Most people, including me, go to work 5 days a week, with no "no commitment other than to padding their own pockets". Pursuit of happiness is a right, not an assumption of guilt.

And what has big business done? Over the last decade, lined the pockets of the Republican party mostly. Go check out campaign finance for the past decade.

You seem to be interested in convincing me of something, why don't you post the data? Which reminds me, the topic here is global warming, not 'Republican vs Democrat'.

What has that done? The Republican controlled congress and White House through 2006 wrote tax changes that mostly benefitted, tax wise, the upper 3 percent of wage earning Americans.

Q. And can you guess who runs all those big corporations that line their pockets?

A. Members of the top 3 percent of wage earners.


The wealthiest 3 percent of Americans do not work for a 'wage'.

Good ole boy politics at its finest.


Oh...one last thing:

Real Christians, unlike Bush, won't stab others in the back to fulfill their own desires and wants.

Christian = being like Christ. Remember that, oh great soothsayer.

Christ died for his cause...he didn't send over 2000 people to die for him.


That's nice. Back to the subject of global warming?

Collapse -

Facts

by jck In reply to Actually...you're right i ...

1) The Bush Administration awarded to Halliburton a $5,000,000,000 no-bid contract in 2005 on the basis of "having the necessary assets in the region" and called the work "logistics support".


No other companies were in all of Europe and the Middle East that could have competitively bid for that?

sure.

2) As of assuming office, **** Cheney still holds in stock options alone over 50,000 of Halliburton , then valued at near $4M alone as of 2006. These are options that still, within his "blind trust", earn him dividends.

This does not include the value of standard shares he owns, nor shares he has put into his family members' names.

Yes, politicians hide assets under their spouse and other family members' names.

Oh yes...perhaps you didn't know as well. Let me explain how a blind trust works to you, since you seem not to understand.

Blind trusts don't keep elected officials from earning returns on investments they held when taking office, nor does it prevent them from influencing decisions to get those stakeholdings work that gives them extra dividends.

Blind trusts are a front that is a kind of damage control for politicians and other crooked people who would manipulate them to attempt to keep them from looking like they are dealing in impropriety. Keywords here: looking like.

As Senator Bill Frist said in a 2005 column he wrote:

A blind trust is a special something that's designed to prevent what we in Congress like to call a "conflict of interest"; or, to be more accurate, to prevent something else we in Congress like to call "the appearance of a conflict of interest", which is just a whole lot more important.

A guy like Cheney, whose buddy Bush is President, is in a position to move things along to get companies like Halliburton work that directly benefits him and pays him a reward, rather than letting business bid for work.

So....where's that freedom again? Cheney and Bush and their administration strapping the hands of free-enterprise from bidding for work is freedom?

Give me a break.

Your elected officials are still raking in investment dividends from their holdings in "blind trusts", for which they influence (and in some cases, vote upon) and gain financial reward.


And now...back to global warming, as you've requested:

3) Scientists have already established that different factors such as atmospheric contaminants, chemicals, erratic oxygen levels and abnormal ocean salinity level changes which contribute to global warming and ecological climate shifting are at a level which are abnormal according to historical data.

What historical data, you ask? Scientists are able to take ice samples from ancient glaciers which hold records of 10,000s of years of ice which stores these conditions like an archive. So, you can take these samples, dissect them, and analyse what chemicals, gases, etc., are in the atmosphere at any point in the history of the planet and establish what the normal cycle is for the planet for millenia.

They have concluded: Since the advent of the use of fossil fuels and the industrial revolution, mankind has been affecting the environment in a negative fashion and contributing contaminents to the atmosphere which scientifically are proven to lead to the condition called "global warming".

This global warming is now contributing to glacial melting which is affecting the ocean salinity, which will in-turn affect ocean sea convection of water which affects meterological conditions and ecological conditions as well.

I thought I'd give you a synopsis and save you the headache, but I will go find you the scientific papers if you want specific reading to prove the facts to you.

But, don't say I don't know facts just because I don't agree with you.

Collapse -

jck: You seem to have missed Absolutely's point, ...

by deepsand In reply to Actually...you're right i ...

which was that the political issues that you raise have no more bearing on the issue at hand than do those raised by, for example maxwell, sn53 or Tony.

As for the facts of the issue, if you do some background reading of his many posts on this subject you will find that he is well versed in such.

Do not assume him to be your adversary simply because he is willing to entertain all reasonable viewpoints.

Related Discussions

Related Forums