Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#7286
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?
"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:YBBKb.143207$VB2.545606@attbi_s51...
> Let me clue you in on the real meaning, which given your prior
> posts you already grasped but now have decided not to because it's
> convient for you. That is describing the reaction of the global warming
> true believers. No matter what happens it is absorbed into the theory.
Aarggg! You just don't get it, but I'll try again.
"Global Warming" like your referring to it here - ie: popular masses
definition -
is both an observation that the temperature of the Earth is increasing,
a conclusion that the reason is entirely man-made, a further conclusion
that the Earth isn't self-correcting, thus it's up to Man to solve the
problem
since it's his fault to begin with, and a final conclusion that the only way
we can do this is to immediately stop driving our cars and ride around in
electric busses.
"Global Warming" like any real scientist refers to it is simply the
observation
that the temperature of the Earth is increasing, with a conclusion that this
is
altering weather patterns (duh) and another conclusion that if this
keeps up it will do severe damage to the planet, but there is NO further
conclusion as to what is causing it, and no further conclusion as to whether
the Earth will self-correct at some point, and certainly no scientist of any
reputation is guarenteeing that the temp increase will reverse if we all
stop
producing greenhouse gasses.
You are using the popular definition of the concept to trash all the
scientists
and to try to prove that the temperature of the Earth isn't increasing,
which is
rediculous.
> It's like people who before the rubble of the WTC was cold were claiming
> Nostradamus predicted it. The whole planet could be covered by glaciers
> and sci.environment would be loaded with posts that it was the result
> of americans puting too much CO2 in the air.
>
This is a particularly rediculous statement because as anyone who has done
the least bit of study of the issue is aware, the CO2 levels are
self-correcting.
Elevated CO2 levels are recognized to be created by burning of fossil fuels
which releases the stored carbon in the fuel.
However, all fossil fuel supplies are infinite, and many people are now
predicting that fossil fuel extraction globally is past it's peak, and that
within the next 50 years, it will become economically impossible to use
it for fuel. (in short, the cost of extracting a barrel of oil from oil
shale,
or whatever will take the same energy as produced by a barrel of oil,
thus relegating oil production for nothing more than a feedstock for
lubricants or plastic manufacture) In other words, while we still will have
plenty of oil, none of what's left will produce an energy benefit when
it's extracted.
Once fossil fuels stop being burned, the extra CO2 input into the Earth's
system will cease, and plantlife on the Earth's surface will quickly return
the CO2 levels back to what they were before large scale fossil fuel
burning commenced in the 20th century.
The more reasonable speculation on the mankind-tie-into-global-warming
is that pollution is reducing the reflective ability of the snow on the
polar
icecaps, thus increasing the heat energy in sunlight being absorbed.
>
> This is cross posted into sci.environment, one of the biggest political
> newsgroups of usenet.
I don't see sci.environment in the header list, nor am I posting from there.
> it's almost entirely politics. Hence I am using the political definition.
>
> I see you want to divert into some kind of word game. Sorry, I'm not
> going to play.
6 lines earlier you admit to playing word games with your political
definition statement, now you claim your not doing it? Amazing!
> Global Warming as we know it, what it effectively is
> and has become, is part of a greater scientific religion
religions are not scientific.
> Here is where I get called a conservative corporate -----, the devil
> worshipers of this religon because I question it's core beliefs. Thanks
> for proving my point.
>
Hmm - when did I say this? Straw man, straw man. We aren't in
Debating 101, you need to be a bit more educated in your response.
> Look at this thread, look at how I produced scientific papers that
> questioned the beliefs of the religon and look at the response I got.
> I don't even recall anyone else bothering to find cites. Simply spouted
> religious cannon at me. I question, and that get's peoples panties in a
> bunch.
>
I was not aware that everyone arguing with you was a woman, or was
a transvestite male wearing panties.
Note the use of ridicule based on an assumption of the underclothes wearing
habits of your audience. Again, a typical sci.environment response.
>
> > Why if all our
> > children had the same attitude, then by the time that someone got around
to
> > dealing with the problem, it would be too late to do anything about.
> > Ah, now I see the general plan here!
>
> Why don't you come out and call me a planet raping conservative corporate
> ----- that will take everything he can now with no concern for the future.
Because all the planet raping conservative corporate -----s I've run into
think a lot more logically than you seem to be displaying here.
>
> > Brent, you just don't have any faith in humanity. Weather control of
the
> > Earth is not an unsolvable problem. There is nothing physical about
> > the idea that anyone has proposed that is impossible.
>
> That's nice, but has as much relevance as the greys abducting cattle
> in texas since I didn't make any arguements regarding weather control.
>
Assuming that the world's reputable scientists eventually determine
that the global warming that is caused by whatever it's caused cannot
be self-corrected by the Earth, and thus mankind must do something
about the problem, the only solution we are going to have available is
weather control of the Earth's weather.
Naturally the greenies will continue to claim that reducing fossil fuel
use is the only way to fix global warming, but anyone of intelligence
knows this is rediculous daydreaming. The only thing that will reduce
fossil fuel use is when we run out of it.
So, as you can see, weather control DOES have GREAT relevance
to the debate. I understand that it's a solution that's at right angles
to the greenies and anti-greenies such as yourself who want to
keep the global warming debate centered on a debate as to whether
or not it's appropriate to continue to use fossil fuels. So I can
excuse you for not having the quickness of mind to grasp that
there's more than one solution to the problem of global warming
than the one the greenies want to see implemented.
>
> When I get a reactions like yours, it indicates that the foundations are
weak
> and based in faith.
What is wrong with that? My responses DO happen to be based in faith!
I have faith that once the world's scientists all agree that we have to do
something to lower the temperature of the globe, because the globe's
systems to do this aren't working anymore, that the world's scientists
will find a way to do it.
I feel sorry for people like you. Obviously you are very threatened by the
idea of global warming, probably because your afraid that if it's proven to
be happening, that humanity is too slow, stupid, and frail to do anything
about
correcting it. So if you can make yourself believe that the temperature of
the globe isn't increasing - then the entire problem goes away. As I said
before, have a little more faith in the ingenuity of Man, man!
Ted
#7287
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?
"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:YBBKb.143207$VB2.545606@attbi_s51...
> Let me clue you in on the real meaning, which given your prior
> posts you already grasped but now have decided not to because it's
> convient for you. That is describing the reaction of the global warming
> true believers. No matter what happens it is absorbed into the theory.
Aarggg! You just don't get it, but I'll try again.
"Global Warming" like your referring to it here - ie: popular masses
definition -
is both an observation that the temperature of the Earth is increasing,
a conclusion that the reason is entirely man-made, a further conclusion
that the Earth isn't self-correcting, thus it's up to Man to solve the
problem
since it's his fault to begin with, and a final conclusion that the only way
we can do this is to immediately stop driving our cars and ride around in
electric busses.
"Global Warming" like any real scientist refers to it is simply the
observation
that the temperature of the Earth is increasing, with a conclusion that this
is
altering weather patterns (duh) and another conclusion that if this
keeps up it will do severe damage to the planet, but there is NO further
conclusion as to what is causing it, and no further conclusion as to whether
the Earth will self-correct at some point, and certainly no scientist of any
reputation is guarenteeing that the temp increase will reverse if we all
stop
producing greenhouse gasses.
You are using the popular definition of the concept to trash all the
scientists
and to try to prove that the temperature of the Earth isn't increasing,
which is
rediculous.
> It's like people who before the rubble of the WTC was cold were claiming
> Nostradamus predicted it. The whole planet could be covered by glaciers
> and sci.environment would be loaded with posts that it was the result
> of americans puting too much CO2 in the air.
>
This is a particularly rediculous statement because as anyone who has done
the least bit of study of the issue is aware, the CO2 levels are
self-correcting.
Elevated CO2 levels are recognized to be created by burning of fossil fuels
which releases the stored carbon in the fuel.
However, all fossil fuel supplies are infinite, and many people are now
predicting that fossil fuel extraction globally is past it's peak, and that
within the next 50 years, it will become economically impossible to use
it for fuel. (in short, the cost of extracting a barrel of oil from oil
shale,
or whatever will take the same energy as produced by a barrel of oil,
thus relegating oil production for nothing more than a feedstock for
lubricants or plastic manufacture) In other words, while we still will have
plenty of oil, none of what's left will produce an energy benefit when
it's extracted.
Once fossil fuels stop being burned, the extra CO2 input into the Earth's
system will cease, and plantlife on the Earth's surface will quickly return
the CO2 levels back to what they were before large scale fossil fuel
burning commenced in the 20th century.
The more reasonable speculation on the mankind-tie-into-global-warming
is that pollution is reducing the reflective ability of the snow on the
polar
icecaps, thus increasing the heat energy in sunlight being absorbed.
>
> This is cross posted into sci.environment, one of the biggest political
> newsgroups of usenet.
I don't see sci.environment in the header list, nor am I posting from there.
> it's almost entirely politics. Hence I am using the political definition.
>
> I see you want to divert into some kind of word game. Sorry, I'm not
> going to play.
6 lines earlier you admit to playing word games with your political
definition statement, now you claim your not doing it? Amazing!
> Global Warming as we know it, what it effectively is
> and has become, is part of a greater scientific religion
religions are not scientific.
> Here is where I get called a conservative corporate -----, the devil
> worshipers of this religon because I question it's core beliefs. Thanks
> for proving my point.
>
Hmm - when did I say this? Straw man, straw man. We aren't in
Debating 101, you need to be a bit more educated in your response.
> Look at this thread, look at how I produced scientific papers that
> questioned the beliefs of the religon and look at the response I got.
> I don't even recall anyone else bothering to find cites. Simply spouted
> religious cannon at me. I question, and that get's peoples panties in a
> bunch.
>
I was not aware that everyone arguing with you was a woman, or was
a transvestite male wearing panties.
Note the use of ridicule based on an assumption of the underclothes wearing
habits of your audience. Again, a typical sci.environment response.
>
> > Why if all our
> > children had the same attitude, then by the time that someone got around
to
> > dealing with the problem, it would be too late to do anything about.
> > Ah, now I see the general plan here!
>
> Why don't you come out and call me a planet raping conservative corporate
> ----- that will take everything he can now with no concern for the future.
Because all the planet raping conservative corporate -----s I've run into
think a lot more logically than you seem to be displaying here.
>
> > Brent, you just don't have any faith in humanity. Weather control of
the
> > Earth is not an unsolvable problem. There is nothing physical about
> > the idea that anyone has proposed that is impossible.
>
> That's nice, but has as much relevance as the greys abducting cattle
> in texas since I didn't make any arguements regarding weather control.
>
Assuming that the world's reputable scientists eventually determine
that the global warming that is caused by whatever it's caused cannot
be self-corrected by the Earth, and thus mankind must do something
about the problem, the only solution we are going to have available is
weather control of the Earth's weather.
Naturally the greenies will continue to claim that reducing fossil fuel
use is the only way to fix global warming, but anyone of intelligence
knows this is rediculous daydreaming. The only thing that will reduce
fossil fuel use is when we run out of it.
So, as you can see, weather control DOES have GREAT relevance
to the debate. I understand that it's a solution that's at right angles
to the greenies and anti-greenies such as yourself who want to
keep the global warming debate centered on a debate as to whether
or not it's appropriate to continue to use fossil fuels. So I can
excuse you for not having the quickness of mind to grasp that
there's more than one solution to the problem of global warming
than the one the greenies want to see implemented.
>
> When I get a reactions like yours, it indicates that the foundations are
weak
> and based in faith.
What is wrong with that? My responses DO happen to be based in faith!
I have faith that once the world's scientists all agree that we have to do
something to lower the temperature of the globe, because the globe's
systems to do this aren't working anymore, that the world's scientists
will find a way to do it.
I feel sorry for people like you. Obviously you are very threatened by the
idea of global warming, probably because your afraid that if it's proven to
be happening, that humanity is too slow, stupid, and frail to do anything
about
correcting it. So if you can make yourself believe that the temperature of
the globe isn't increasing - then the entire problem goes away. As I said
before, have a little more faith in the ingenuity of Man, man!
Ted
#7288
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?
"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:YBBKb.143207$VB2.545606@attbi_s51...
> Let me clue you in on the real meaning, which given your prior
> posts you already grasped but now have decided not to because it's
> convient for you. That is describing the reaction of the global warming
> true believers. No matter what happens it is absorbed into the theory.
Aarggg! You just don't get it, but I'll try again.
"Global Warming" like your referring to it here - ie: popular masses
definition -
is both an observation that the temperature of the Earth is increasing,
a conclusion that the reason is entirely man-made, a further conclusion
that the Earth isn't self-correcting, thus it's up to Man to solve the
problem
since it's his fault to begin with, and a final conclusion that the only way
we can do this is to immediately stop driving our cars and ride around in
electric busses.
"Global Warming" like any real scientist refers to it is simply the
observation
that the temperature of the Earth is increasing, with a conclusion that this
is
altering weather patterns (duh) and another conclusion that if this
keeps up it will do severe damage to the planet, but there is NO further
conclusion as to what is causing it, and no further conclusion as to whether
the Earth will self-correct at some point, and certainly no scientist of any
reputation is guarenteeing that the temp increase will reverse if we all
stop
producing greenhouse gasses.
You are using the popular definition of the concept to trash all the
scientists
and to try to prove that the temperature of the Earth isn't increasing,
which is
rediculous.
> It's like people who before the rubble of the WTC was cold were claiming
> Nostradamus predicted it. The whole planet could be covered by glaciers
> and sci.environment would be loaded with posts that it was the result
> of americans puting too much CO2 in the air.
>
This is a particularly rediculous statement because as anyone who has done
the least bit of study of the issue is aware, the CO2 levels are
self-correcting.
Elevated CO2 levels are recognized to be created by burning of fossil fuels
which releases the stored carbon in the fuel.
However, all fossil fuel supplies are infinite, and many people are now
predicting that fossil fuel extraction globally is past it's peak, and that
within the next 50 years, it will become economically impossible to use
it for fuel. (in short, the cost of extracting a barrel of oil from oil
shale,
or whatever will take the same energy as produced by a barrel of oil,
thus relegating oil production for nothing more than a feedstock for
lubricants or plastic manufacture) In other words, while we still will have
plenty of oil, none of what's left will produce an energy benefit when
it's extracted.
Once fossil fuels stop being burned, the extra CO2 input into the Earth's
system will cease, and plantlife on the Earth's surface will quickly return
the CO2 levels back to what they were before large scale fossil fuel
burning commenced in the 20th century.
The more reasonable speculation on the mankind-tie-into-global-warming
is that pollution is reducing the reflective ability of the snow on the
polar
icecaps, thus increasing the heat energy in sunlight being absorbed.
>
> This is cross posted into sci.environment, one of the biggest political
> newsgroups of usenet.
I don't see sci.environment in the header list, nor am I posting from there.
> it's almost entirely politics. Hence I am using the political definition.
>
> I see you want to divert into some kind of word game. Sorry, I'm not
> going to play.
6 lines earlier you admit to playing word games with your political
definition statement, now you claim your not doing it? Amazing!
> Global Warming as we know it, what it effectively is
> and has become, is part of a greater scientific religion
religions are not scientific.
> Here is where I get called a conservative corporate -----, the devil
> worshipers of this religon because I question it's core beliefs. Thanks
> for proving my point.
>
Hmm - when did I say this? Straw man, straw man. We aren't in
Debating 101, you need to be a bit more educated in your response.
> Look at this thread, look at how I produced scientific papers that
> questioned the beliefs of the religon and look at the response I got.
> I don't even recall anyone else bothering to find cites. Simply spouted
> religious cannon at me. I question, and that get's peoples panties in a
> bunch.
>
I was not aware that everyone arguing with you was a woman, or was
a transvestite male wearing panties.
Note the use of ridicule based on an assumption of the underclothes wearing
habits of your audience. Again, a typical sci.environment response.
>
> > Why if all our
> > children had the same attitude, then by the time that someone got around
to
> > dealing with the problem, it would be too late to do anything about.
> > Ah, now I see the general plan here!
>
> Why don't you come out and call me a planet raping conservative corporate
> ----- that will take everything he can now with no concern for the future.
Because all the planet raping conservative corporate -----s I've run into
think a lot more logically than you seem to be displaying here.
>
> > Brent, you just don't have any faith in humanity. Weather control of
the
> > Earth is not an unsolvable problem. There is nothing physical about
> > the idea that anyone has proposed that is impossible.
>
> That's nice, but has as much relevance as the greys abducting cattle
> in texas since I didn't make any arguements regarding weather control.
>
Assuming that the world's reputable scientists eventually determine
that the global warming that is caused by whatever it's caused cannot
be self-corrected by the Earth, and thus mankind must do something
about the problem, the only solution we are going to have available is
weather control of the Earth's weather.
Naturally the greenies will continue to claim that reducing fossil fuel
use is the only way to fix global warming, but anyone of intelligence
knows this is rediculous daydreaming. The only thing that will reduce
fossil fuel use is when we run out of it.
So, as you can see, weather control DOES have GREAT relevance
to the debate. I understand that it's a solution that's at right angles
to the greenies and anti-greenies such as yourself who want to
keep the global warming debate centered on a debate as to whether
or not it's appropriate to continue to use fossil fuels. So I can
excuse you for not having the quickness of mind to grasp that
there's more than one solution to the problem of global warming
than the one the greenies want to see implemented.
>
> When I get a reactions like yours, it indicates that the foundations are
weak
> and based in faith.
What is wrong with that? My responses DO happen to be based in faith!
I have faith that once the world's scientists all agree that we have to do
something to lower the temperature of the globe, because the globe's
systems to do this aren't working anymore, that the world's scientists
will find a way to do it.
I feel sorry for people like you. Obviously you are very threatened by the
idea of global warming, probably because your afraid that if it's proven to
be happening, that humanity is too slow, stupid, and frail to do anything
about
correcting it. So if you can make yourself believe that the temperature of
the globe isn't increasing - then the entire problem goes away. As I said
before, have a little more faith in the ingenuity of Man, man!
Ted
#7289
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?
In article <newscache$i5g4rh$v4d1$1@news.ipinc.net>, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
> "Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:YBBKb.143207$VB2.545606@attbi_s51...
>
>> Let me clue you in on the real meaning, which given your prior
>> posts you already grasped but now have decided not to because it's
>> convient for you. That is describing the reaction of the global warming
>> true believers. No matter what happens it is absorbed into the theory.
>
> Aarggg! You just don't get it, but I'll try again.
I get what you are trying to do. The problem is that is not the
working definition and you know it.
> "Global Warming" like your referring to it here - ie: popular masses
> definition -
> is both an observation that the temperature of the Earth is increasing,
> a conclusion that the reason is entirely man-made, a further conclusion
> that the Earth isn't self-correcting, thus it's up to Man to solve the
> problem since it's his fault to begin with, and a final conclusion
> that the only way we can do this is to immediately stop driving our
> cars and ride around in electric busses.
Not what I stated. Temeperature does not have to be observed to increase
for the political agenda.
> "Global Warming" like any real scientist refers to it is simply the
> observation that the temperature of the Earth is increasing, with a
> conclusion that this is altering weather patterns (duh) and another
> conclusion that if this keeps up it will do severe damage to the
> planet, but there is NO further conclusion as to what is causing it,
> and no further conclusion as to whether the Earth will self-correct at
> some point, and certainly no scientist of any reputation is
> guarenteeing that the temp increase will reverse if we all stop
> producing greenhouse gasses.
Could you please get your line lengths fixed, reformating your text
is becoming annoying.
And if that *IS* the definition scientists use, how come the lack
of attack on Dr. Parker (self proclaimed scientist) by any of the
sci.environment regulars like yourself? Why don't you put Dr. Parker
in his place as he goes off spouting it's the result of man creating
too much CO2 (while he's driving a MB)? Instead you waste your time
trying to discredit me, someone who merely questions. It's very telling
indeed what the real working definition of global warming is.
> You are using the popular definition of the concept to trash all the
> scientists and to try to prove that the temperature of the Earth isn't
> increasing, which is rediculous.
I haven't done anything of the kind. That's in your imagination. I am
saying that if a scientist does not believe that man's activities are
causing global warming, if his data and research doesn't show a warming,
he will suffer career wise. It's the new religion. Just like galieo
suffered from the religious leaders of the day, a scientist who has
done research that shows no significant warming or that any warming
is caused by nature will likely suffer. It's seen in sci.environment
consistantly. That's what I am talking about.
The fact that you keep interpeting this as an attempt to disprove
global warming proves my point. It's a religion and my statements
are then viewed as an attack on that religion. You and others continue
in your arguement assignments, ridicule, and personal attack any time
someone questions the faith.
>> It's like people who before the rubble of the WTC was cold were claiming
>> Nostradamus predicted it. The whole planet could be covered by glaciers
>> and sci.environment would be loaded with posts that it was the result
>> of americans puting too much CO2 in the air.
> This is a particularly rediculous statement because as anyone who has done
> the least bit of study of the issue is aware, the CO2 levels are
> self-correcting.
Read what I wrote again. It's an OBSERVATION of sci.environment regulars.
You might as well have written a response about greys cutting cattle in
Nebraska because it makes as much sense as what you wrote as a response
to my observation of sci.environment regulars.
> Elevated CO2 levels are recognized to be created by burning of fossil fuels
> which releases the stored carbon in the fuel.
> However, all fossil fuel supplies are infinite, and many people are now
> predicting that fossil fuel extraction globally is past it's peak, and that
> within the next 50 years, it will become economically impossible to use
> it for fuel. (in short, the cost of extracting a barrel of oil from oil
> shale,
> or whatever will take the same energy as produced by a barrel of oil,
> thus relegating oil production for nothing more than a feedstock for
> lubricants or plastic manufacture) In other words, while we still will have
> plenty of oil, none of what's left will produce an energy benefit when
> it's extracted.
> Once fossil fuels stop being burned, the extra CO2 input into the Earth's
> system will cease, and plantlife on the Earth's surface will quickly return
> the CO2 levels back to what they were before large scale fossil fuel
> burning commenced in the 20th century.
> The more reasonable speculation on the mankind-tie-into-global-warming
> is that pollution is reducing the reflective ability of the snow on the
> polar icecaps, thus increasing the heat energy in sunlight being absorbed.
That's nice but has nothing to do with the point I've made.
>> This is cross posted into sci.environment, one of the biggest political
>> newsgroups of usenet.
> I don't see sci.environment in the header list, nor am I posting from there.
It was before the thread was revived or maybe it was one of the other
offshoots or global warming threads. Same difference though.
>> I see you want to divert into some kind of word game. Sorry, I'm not
>> going to play.
> 6 lines earlier you admit to playing word games with your political
> definition statement, now you claim your not doing it? Amazing!
WTF? Support your claim.
>> Global Warming as we know it, what it effectively is
>> and has become, is part of a greater scientific religion
> religions are not scientific.
You don't understand then what happens in science to those that
don't follow the popular path. No funding, wrecked careers, etc.
>> Here is where I get called a conservative corporate -----, the devil
>> worshipers of this religon because I question it's core beliefs. Thanks
>> for proving my point.
> Hmm - when did I say this? Straw man, straw man. We aren't in
> Debating 101, you need to be a bit more educated in your response.
This coming from someone who has been making up arguements for me and
then shooting those arguements down? Laughable. The quoted material
above is the response to where you were once again claiming that I
was attacking global warming. What typically follows that is a personal
attack like I described. I question, but in questioning people like
you begin to use terms like "other side". That any questioning
automatically puts a person on that "other side" of planet raping
conservative corporate -----s who fund bogus research to keep their
profit machines going.
>> Look at this thread, look at how I produced scientific papers that
>> questioned the beliefs of the religon and look at the response I got.
>> I don't even recall anyone else bothering to find cites. Simply spouted
>> religious cannon at me. I question, and that get's peoples panties in a
>> bunch.
> I was not aware that everyone arguing with you was a woman, or was
> a transvestite male wearing panties.
>
> Note the use of ridicule based on an assumption of the underclothes wearing
> habits of your audience. Again, a typical sci.environment response.
I note how you play dumb and side track into a saying rather than make
any attempt to address the facts of what happens when someone questions
the global warming. Here's a hint, replace 'gets their panties in a bunch'
with 'makes them angry and/or defensive'. Happy?
>> > Why if all our
>> > children had the same attitude, then by the time that someone got around to
>> > dealing with the problem, it would be too late to do anything about.
>> > Ah, now I see the general plan here!
>> Why don't you come out and call me a planet raping conservative corporate
>> ----- that will take everything he can now with no concern for the future.
> Because all the planet raping conservative corporate -----s I've run into
> think a lot more logically than you seem to be displaying here.
And here we go again, anyone who questions the faith is stupid, illogical,
mentally unbalanced, etc.
>> > Brent, you just don't have any faith in humanity. Weather control of the
>> > Earth is not an unsolvable problem. There is nothing physical about
>> > the idea that anyone has proposed that is impossible.
>> That's nice, but has as much relevance as the greys abducting cattle
>> in texas since I didn't make any arguements regarding weather control.
> Assuming that the world's reputable scientists eventually determine
> that the global warming that is caused by whatever it's caused cannot
> be self-corrected by the Earth, and thus mankind must do something
> about the problem, the only solution we are going to have available is
> weather control of the Earth's weather.
Next you'll start talking about chem-trails.
> Naturally the greenies will continue to claim that reducing fossil fuel
> use is the only way to fix global warming, but anyone of intelligence
> knows this is rediculous daydreaming. The only thing that will reduce
> fossil fuel use is when we run out of it.
They claim that people in the *western* nations reducing fossil fuel
use is the only way to fix global warming. People in developing countries
are free to make up the difference and add more on top of that.
> So, as you can see, weather control DOES have GREAT relevance
> to the debate. I understand that it's a solution that's at right angles
> to the greenies and anti-greenies such as yourself who want to
Here we go with the labels again. Like I said before, irl I am probably
more 'green' than the greenies like Dr. Parker.
> keep the global warming debate centered on a debate as to whether
> or not it's appropriate to continue to use fossil fuels. So I can
> excuse you for not having the quickness of mind to grasp that
> there's more than one solution to the problem of global warming
> than the one the greenies want to see implemented.
Oh I know there is more to it, but you are using this built up personal
attack of yours to divert from my point. Global warming is now part
of a greater religion like structure where anyone who questions it
is an enemy of the faith. You prove this simply with the what you've
done to attempt to discredit me and divert the discussion away from
my point.
>> When I get a reactions like yours, it indicates that the foundations are weak
>> and based in faith.
> What is wrong with that? My responses DO happen to be based in faith!
> I have faith that once the world's scientists all agree that we have to do
> something to lower the temperature of the globe, because the globe's
> systems to do this aren't working anymore, that the world's scientists
> will find a way to do it.
You unquestionally follow a belief system that is endorsed by scientists.
I question it. And when I question it, I get responses like yours that
try to discredit me, attack me personally, etc. And that's the response
I get for asking questions. Not only that, I have to show research and
make cites just to show I have a reason for questioning! That's not
science, least not the way it's supposed to be. That's religion.
Instead of getting good, solid, scientific responses and cites, I get
attack like below:
> I feel sorry for people like you. Obviously you are very threatened by the
> idea of global warming, probably because your afraid that if it's proven to
> be happening, that humanity is too slow, stupid, and frail to do anything
> about correcting it. So if you can make yourself believe that the
> temperature of the globe isn't increasing - then the entire problem
> goes away. As I said before, have a little more faith in the ingenuity
> of Man, man!
Enjoy your faith in the new religion.
>
> "Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:YBBKb.143207$VB2.545606@attbi_s51...
>
>> Let me clue you in on the real meaning, which given your prior
>> posts you already grasped but now have decided not to because it's
>> convient for you. That is describing the reaction of the global warming
>> true believers. No matter what happens it is absorbed into the theory.
>
> Aarggg! You just don't get it, but I'll try again.
I get what you are trying to do. The problem is that is not the
working definition and you know it.
> "Global Warming" like your referring to it here - ie: popular masses
> definition -
> is both an observation that the temperature of the Earth is increasing,
> a conclusion that the reason is entirely man-made, a further conclusion
> that the Earth isn't self-correcting, thus it's up to Man to solve the
> problem since it's his fault to begin with, and a final conclusion
> that the only way we can do this is to immediately stop driving our
> cars and ride around in electric busses.
Not what I stated. Temeperature does not have to be observed to increase
for the political agenda.
> "Global Warming" like any real scientist refers to it is simply the
> observation that the temperature of the Earth is increasing, with a
> conclusion that this is altering weather patterns (duh) and another
> conclusion that if this keeps up it will do severe damage to the
> planet, but there is NO further conclusion as to what is causing it,
> and no further conclusion as to whether the Earth will self-correct at
> some point, and certainly no scientist of any reputation is
> guarenteeing that the temp increase will reverse if we all stop
> producing greenhouse gasses.
Could you please get your line lengths fixed, reformating your text
is becoming annoying.
And if that *IS* the definition scientists use, how come the lack
of attack on Dr. Parker (self proclaimed scientist) by any of the
sci.environment regulars like yourself? Why don't you put Dr. Parker
in his place as he goes off spouting it's the result of man creating
too much CO2 (while he's driving a MB)? Instead you waste your time
trying to discredit me, someone who merely questions. It's very telling
indeed what the real working definition of global warming is.
> You are using the popular definition of the concept to trash all the
> scientists and to try to prove that the temperature of the Earth isn't
> increasing, which is rediculous.
I haven't done anything of the kind. That's in your imagination. I am
saying that if a scientist does not believe that man's activities are
causing global warming, if his data and research doesn't show a warming,
he will suffer career wise. It's the new religion. Just like galieo
suffered from the religious leaders of the day, a scientist who has
done research that shows no significant warming or that any warming
is caused by nature will likely suffer. It's seen in sci.environment
consistantly. That's what I am talking about.
The fact that you keep interpeting this as an attempt to disprove
global warming proves my point. It's a religion and my statements
are then viewed as an attack on that religion. You and others continue
in your arguement assignments, ridicule, and personal attack any time
someone questions the faith.
>> It's like people who before the rubble of the WTC was cold were claiming
>> Nostradamus predicted it. The whole planet could be covered by glaciers
>> and sci.environment would be loaded with posts that it was the result
>> of americans puting too much CO2 in the air.
> This is a particularly rediculous statement because as anyone who has done
> the least bit of study of the issue is aware, the CO2 levels are
> self-correcting.
Read what I wrote again. It's an OBSERVATION of sci.environment regulars.
You might as well have written a response about greys cutting cattle in
Nebraska because it makes as much sense as what you wrote as a response
to my observation of sci.environment regulars.
> Elevated CO2 levels are recognized to be created by burning of fossil fuels
> which releases the stored carbon in the fuel.
> However, all fossil fuel supplies are infinite, and many people are now
> predicting that fossil fuel extraction globally is past it's peak, and that
> within the next 50 years, it will become economically impossible to use
> it for fuel. (in short, the cost of extracting a barrel of oil from oil
> shale,
> or whatever will take the same energy as produced by a barrel of oil,
> thus relegating oil production for nothing more than a feedstock for
> lubricants or plastic manufacture) In other words, while we still will have
> plenty of oil, none of what's left will produce an energy benefit when
> it's extracted.
> Once fossil fuels stop being burned, the extra CO2 input into the Earth's
> system will cease, and plantlife on the Earth's surface will quickly return
> the CO2 levels back to what they were before large scale fossil fuel
> burning commenced in the 20th century.
> The more reasonable speculation on the mankind-tie-into-global-warming
> is that pollution is reducing the reflective ability of the snow on the
> polar icecaps, thus increasing the heat energy in sunlight being absorbed.
That's nice but has nothing to do with the point I've made.
>> This is cross posted into sci.environment, one of the biggest political
>> newsgroups of usenet.
> I don't see sci.environment in the header list, nor am I posting from there.
It was before the thread was revived or maybe it was one of the other
offshoots or global warming threads. Same difference though.
>> I see you want to divert into some kind of word game. Sorry, I'm not
>> going to play.
> 6 lines earlier you admit to playing word games with your political
> definition statement, now you claim your not doing it? Amazing!
WTF? Support your claim.
>> Global Warming as we know it, what it effectively is
>> and has become, is part of a greater scientific religion
> religions are not scientific.
You don't understand then what happens in science to those that
don't follow the popular path. No funding, wrecked careers, etc.
>> Here is where I get called a conservative corporate -----, the devil
>> worshipers of this religon because I question it's core beliefs. Thanks
>> for proving my point.
> Hmm - when did I say this? Straw man, straw man. We aren't in
> Debating 101, you need to be a bit more educated in your response.
This coming from someone who has been making up arguements for me and
then shooting those arguements down? Laughable. The quoted material
above is the response to where you were once again claiming that I
was attacking global warming. What typically follows that is a personal
attack like I described. I question, but in questioning people like
you begin to use terms like "other side". That any questioning
automatically puts a person on that "other side" of planet raping
conservative corporate -----s who fund bogus research to keep their
profit machines going.
>> Look at this thread, look at how I produced scientific papers that
>> questioned the beliefs of the religon and look at the response I got.
>> I don't even recall anyone else bothering to find cites. Simply spouted
>> religious cannon at me. I question, and that get's peoples panties in a
>> bunch.
> I was not aware that everyone arguing with you was a woman, or was
> a transvestite male wearing panties.
>
> Note the use of ridicule based on an assumption of the underclothes wearing
> habits of your audience. Again, a typical sci.environment response.
I note how you play dumb and side track into a saying rather than make
any attempt to address the facts of what happens when someone questions
the global warming. Here's a hint, replace 'gets their panties in a bunch'
with 'makes them angry and/or defensive'. Happy?
>> > Why if all our
>> > children had the same attitude, then by the time that someone got around to
>> > dealing with the problem, it would be too late to do anything about.
>> > Ah, now I see the general plan here!
>> Why don't you come out and call me a planet raping conservative corporate
>> ----- that will take everything he can now with no concern for the future.
> Because all the planet raping conservative corporate -----s I've run into
> think a lot more logically than you seem to be displaying here.
And here we go again, anyone who questions the faith is stupid, illogical,
mentally unbalanced, etc.
>> > Brent, you just don't have any faith in humanity. Weather control of the
>> > Earth is not an unsolvable problem. There is nothing physical about
>> > the idea that anyone has proposed that is impossible.
>> That's nice, but has as much relevance as the greys abducting cattle
>> in texas since I didn't make any arguements regarding weather control.
> Assuming that the world's reputable scientists eventually determine
> that the global warming that is caused by whatever it's caused cannot
> be self-corrected by the Earth, and thus mankind must do something
> about the problem, the only solution we are going to have available is
> weather control of the Earth's weather.
Next you'll start talking about chem-trails.
> Naturally the greenies will continue to claim that reducing fossil fuel
> use is the only way to fix global warming, but anyone of intelligence
> knows this is rediculous daydreaming. The only thing that will reduce
> fossil fuel use is when we run out of it.
They claim that people in the *western* nations reducing fossil fuel
use is the only way to fix global warming. People in developing countries
are free to make up the difference and add more on top of that.
> So, as you can see, weather control DOES have GREAT relevance
> to the debate. I understand that it's a solution that's at right angles
> to the greenies and anti-greenies such as yourself who want to
Here we go with the labels again. Like I said before, irl I am probably
more 'green' than the greenies like Dr. Parker.
> keep the global warming debate centered on a debate as to whether
> or not it's appropriate to continue to use fossil fuels. So I can
> excuse you for not having the quickness of mind to grasp that
> there's more than one solution to the problem of global warming
> than the one the greenies want to see implemented.
Oh I know there is more to it, but you are using this built up personal
attack of yours to divert from my point. Global warming is now part
of a greater religion like structure where anyone who questions it
is an enemy of the faith. You prove this simply with the what you've
done to attempt to discredit me and divert the discussion away from
my point.
>> When I get a reactions like yours, it indicates that the foundations are weak
>> and based in faith.
> What is wrong with that? My responses DO happen to be based in faith!
> I have faith that once the world's scientists all agree that we have to do
> something to lower the temperature of the globe, because the globe's
> systems to do this aren't working anymore, that the world's scientists
> will find a way to do it.
You unquestionally follow a belief system that is endorsed by scientists.
I question it. And when I question it, I get responses like yours that
try to discredit me, attack me personally, etc. And that's the response
I get for asking questions. Not only that, I have to show research and
make cites just to show I have a reason for questioning! That's not
science, least not the way it's supposed to be. That's religion.
Instead of getting good, solid, scientific responses and cites, I get
attack like below:
> I feel sorry for people like you. Obviously you are very threatened by the
> idea of global warming, probably because your afraid that if it's proven to
> be happening, that humanity is too slow, stupid, and frail to do anything
> about correcting it. So if you can make yourself believe that the
> temperature of the globe isn't increasing - then the entire problem
> goes away. As I said before, have a little more faith in the ingenuity
> of Man, man!
Enjoy your faith in the new religion.
#7290
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?
In article <newscache$i5g4rh$v4d1$1@news.ipinc.net>, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
> "Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:YBBKb.143207$VB2.545606@attbi_s51...
>
>> Let me clue you in on the real meaning, which given your prior
>> posts you already grasped but now have decided not to because it's
>> convient for you. That is describing the reaction of the global warming
>> true believers. No matter what happens it is absorbed into the theory.
>
> Aarggg! You just don't get it, but I'll try again.
I get what you are trying to do. The problem is that is not the
working definition and you know it.
> "Global Warming" like your referring to it here - ie: popular masses
> definition -
> is both an observation that the temperature of the Earth is increasing,
> a conclusion that the reason is entirely man-made, a further conclusion
> that the Earth isn't self-correcting, thus it's up to Man to solve the
> problem since it's his fault to begin with, and a final conclusion
> that the only way we can do this is to immediately stop driving our
> cars and ride around in electric busses.
Not what I stated. Temeperature does not have to be observed to increase
for the political agenda.
> "Global Warming" like any real scientist refers to it is simply the
> observation that the temperature of the Earth is increasing, with a
> conclusion that this is altering weather patterns (duh) and another
> conclusion that if this keeps up it will do severe damage to the
> planet, but there is NO further conclusion as to what is causing it,
> and no further conclusion as to whether the Earth will self-correct at
> some point, and certainly no scientist of any reputation is
> guarenteeing that the temp increase will reverse if we all stop
> producing greenhouse gasses.
Could you please get your line lengths fixed, reformating your text
is becoming annoying.
And if that *IS* the definition scientists use, how come the lack
of attack on Dr. Parker (self proclaimed scientist) by any of the
sci.environment regulars like yourself? Why don't you put Dr. Parker
in his place as he goes off spouting it's the result of man creating
too much CO2 (while he's driving a MB)? Instead you waste your time
trying to discredit me, someone who merely questions. It's very telling
indeed what the real working definition of global warming is.
> You are using the popular definition of the concept to trash all the
> scientists and to try to prove that the temperature of the Earth isn't
> increasing, which is rediculous.
I haven't done anything of the kind. That's in your imagination. I am
saying that if a scientist does not believe that man's activities are
causing global warming, if his data and research doesn't show a warming,
he will suffer career wise. It's the new religion. Just like galieo
suffered from the religious leaders of the day, a scientist who has
done research that shows no significant warming or that any warming
is caused by nature will likely suffer. It's seen in sci.environment
consistantly. That's what I am talking about.
The fact that you keep interpeting this as an attempt to disprove
global warming proves my point. It's a religion and my statements
are then viewed as an attack on that religion. You and others continue
in your arguement assignments, ridicule, and personal attack any time
someone questions the faith.
>> It's like people who before the rubble of the WTC was cold were claiming
>> Nostradamus predicted it. The whole planet could be covered by glaciers
>> and sci.environment would be loaded with posts that it was the result
>> of americans puting too much CO2 in the air.
> This is a particularly rediculous statement because as anyone who has done
> the least bit of study of the issue is aware, the CO2 levels are
> self-correcting.
Read what I wrote again. It's an OBSERVATION of sci.environment regulars.
You might as well have written a response about greys cutting cattle in
Nebraska because it makes as much sense as what you wrote as a response
to my observation of sci.environment regulars.
> Elevated CO2 levels are recognized to be created by burning of fossil fuels
> which releases the stored carbon in the fuel.
> However, all fossil fuel supplies are infinite, and many people are now
> predicting that fossil fuel extraction globally is past it's peak, and that
> within the next 50 years, it will become economically impossible to use
> it for fuel. (in short, the cost of extracting a barrel of oil from oil
> shale,
> or whatever will take the same energy as produced by a barrel of oil,
> thus relegating oil production for nothing more than a feedstock for
> lubricants or plastic manufacture) In other words, while we still will have
> plenty of oil, none of what's left will produce an energy benefit when
> it's extracted.
> Once fossil fuels stop being burned, the extra CO2 input into the Earth's
> system will cease, and plantlife on the Earth's surface will quickly return
> the CO2 levels back to what they were before large scale fossil fuel
> burning commenced in the 20th century.
> The more reasonable speculation on the mankind-tie-into-global-warming
> is that pollution is reducing the reflective ability of the snow on the
> polar icecaps, thus increasing the heat energy in sunlight being absorbed.
That's nice but has nothing to do with the point I've made.
>> This is cross posted into sci.environment, one of the biggest political
>> newsgroups of usenet.
> I don't see sci.environment in the header list, nor am I posting from there.
It was before the thread was revived or maybe it was one of the other
offshoots or global warming threads. Same difference though.
>> I see you want to divert into some kind of word game. Sorry, I'm not
>> going to play.
> 6 lines earlier you admit to playing word games with your political
> definition statement, now you claim your not doing it? Amazing!
WTF? Support your claim.
>> Global Warming as we know it, what it effectively is
>> and has become, is part of a greater scientific religion
> religions are not scientific.
You don't understand then what happens in science to those that
don't follow the popular path. No funding, wrecked careers, etc.
>> Here is where I get called a conservative corporate -----, the devil
>> worshipers of this religon because I question it's core beliefs. Thanks
>> for proving my point.
> Hmm - when did I say this? Straw man, straw man. We aren't in
> Debating 101, you need to be a bit more educated in your response.
This coming from someone who has been making up arguements for me and
then shooting those arguements down? Laughable. The quoted material
above is the response to where you were once again claiming that I
was attacking global warming. What typically follows that is a personal
attack like I described. I question, but in questioning people like
you begin to use terms like "other side". That any questioning
automatically puts a person on that "other side" of planet raping
conservative corporate -----s who fund bogus research to keep their
profit machines going.
>> Look at this thread, look at how I produced scientific papers that
>> questioned the beliefs of the religon and look at the response I got.
>> I don't even recall anyone else bothering to find cites. Simply spouted
>> religious cannon at me. I question, and that get's peoples panties in a
>> bunch.
> I was not aware that everyone arguing with you was a woman, or was
> a transvestite male wearing panties.
>
> Note the use of ridicule based on an assumption of the underclothes wearing
> habits of your audience. Again, a typical sci.environment response.
I note how you play dumb and side track into a saying rather than make
any attempt to address the facts of what happens when someone questions
the global warming. Here's a hint, replace 'gets their panties in a bunch'
with 'makes them angry and/or defensive'. Happy?
>> > Why if all our
>> > children had the same attitude, then by the time that someone got around to
>> > dealing with the problem, it would be too late to do anything about.
>> > Ah, now I see the general plan here!
>> Why don't you come out and call me a planet raping conservative corporate
>> ----- that will take everything he can now with no concern for the future.
> Because all the planet raping conservative corporate -----s I've run into
> think a lot more logically than you seem to be displaying here.
And here we go again, anyone who questions the faith is stupid, illogical,
mentally unbalanced, etc.
>> > Brent, you just don't have any faith in humanity. Weather control of the
>> > Earth is not an unsolvable problem. There is nothing physical about
>> > the idea that anyone has proposed that is impossible.
>> That's nice, but has as much relevance as the greys abducting cattle
>> in texas since I didn't make any arguements regarding weather control.
> Assuming that the world's reputable scientists eventually determine
> that the global warming that is caused by whatever it's caused cannot
> be self-corrected by the Earth, and thus mankind must do something
> about the problem, the only solution we are going to have available is
> weather control of the Earth's weather.
Next you'll start talking about chem-trails.
> Naturally the greenies will continue to claim that reducing fossil fuel
> use is the only way to fix global warming, but anyone of intelligence
> knows this is rediculous daydreaming. The only thing that will reduce
> fossil fuel use is when we run out of it.
They claim that people in the *western* nations reducing fossil fuel
use is the only way to fix global warming. People in developing countries
are free to make up the difference and add more on top of that.
> So, as you can see, weather control DOES have GREAT relevance
> to the debate. I understand that it's a solution that's at right angles
> to the greenies and anti-greenies such as yourself who want to
Here we go with the labels again. Like I said before, irl I am probably
more 'green' than the greenies like Dr. Parker.
> keep the global warming debate centered on a debate as to whether
> or not it's appropriate to continue to use fossil fuels. So I can
> excuse you for not having the quickness of mind to grasp that
> there's more than one solution to the problem of global warming
> than the one the greenies want to see implemented.
Oh I know there is more to it, but you are using this built up personal
attack of yours to divert from my point. Global warming is now part
of a greater religion like structure where anyone who questions it
is an enemy of the faith. You prove this simply with the what you've
done to attempt to discredit me and divert the discussion away from
my point.
>> When I get a reactions like yours, it indicates that the foundations are weak
>> and based in faith.
> What is wrong with that? My responses DO happen to be based in faith!
> I have faith that once the world's scientists all agree that we have to do
> something to lower the temperature of the globe, because the globe's
> systems to do this aren't working anymore, that the world's scientists
> will find a way to do it.
You unquestionally follow a belief system that is endorsed by scientists.
I question it. And when I question it, I get responses like yours that
try to discredit me, attack me personally, etc. And that's the response
I get for asking questions. Not only that, I have to show research and
make cites just to show I have a reason for questioning! That's not
science, least not the way it's supposed to be. That's religion.
Instead of getting good, solid, scientific responses and cites, I get
attack like below:
> I feel sorry for people like you. Obviously you are very threatened by the
> idea of global warming, probably because your afraid that if it's proven to
> be happening, that humanity is too slow, stupid, and frail to do anything
> about correcting it. So if you can make yourself believe that the
> temperature of the globe isn't increasing - then the entire problem
> goes away. As I said before, have a little more faith in the ingenuity
> of Man, man!
Enjoy your faith in the new religion.
>
> "Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:YBBKb.143207$VB2.545606@attbi_s51...
>
>> Let me clue you in on the real meaning, which given your prior
>> posts you already grasped but now have decided not to because it's
>> convient for you. That is describing the reaction of the global warming
>> true believers. No matter what happens it is absorbed into the theory.
>
> Aarggg! You just don't get it, but I'll try again.
I get what you are trying to do. The problem is that is not the
working definition and you know it.
> "Global Warming" like your referring to it here - ie: popular masses
> definition -
> is both an observation that the temperature of the Earth is increasing,
> a conclusion that the reason is entirely man-made, a further conclusion
> that the Earth isn't self-correcting, thus it's up to Man to solve the
> problem since it's his fault to begin with, and a final conclusion
> that the only way we can do this is to immediately stop driving our
> cars and ride around in electric busses.
Not what I stated. Temeperature does not have to be observed to increase
for the political agenda.
> "Global Warming" like any real scientist refers to it is simply the
> observation that the temperature of the Earth is increasing, with a
> conclusion that this is altering weather patterns (duh) and another
> conclusion that if this keeps up it will do severe damage to the
> planet, but there is NO further conclusion as to what is causing it,
> and no further conclusion as to whether the Earth will self-correct at
> some point, and certainly no scientist of any reputation is
> guarenteeing that the temp increase will reverse if we all stop
> producing greenhouse gasses.
Could you please get your line lengths fixed, reformating your text
is becoming annoying.
And if that *IS* the definition scientists use, how come the lack
of attack on Dr. Parker (self proclaimed scientist) by any of the
sci.environment regulars like yourself? Why don't you put Dr. Parker
in his place as he goes off spouting it's the result of man creating
too much CO2 (while he's driving a MB)? Instead you waste your time
trying to discredit me, someone who merely questions. It's very telling
indeed what the real working definition of global warming is.
> You are using the popular definition of the concept to trash all the
> scientists and to try to prove that the temperature of the Earth isn't
> increasing, which is rediculous.
I haven't done anything of the kind. That's in your imagination. I am
saying that if a scientist does not believe that man's activities are
causing global warming, if his data and research doesn't show a warming,
he will suffer career wise. It's the new religion. Just like galieo
suffered from the religious leaders of the day, a scientist who has
done research that shows no significant warming or that any warming
is caused by nature will likely suffer. It's seen in sci.environment
consistantly. That's what I am talking about.
The fact that you keep interpeting this as an attempt to disprove
global warming proves my point. It's a religion and my statements
are then viewed as an attack on that religion. You and others continue
in your arguement assignments, ridicule, and personal attack any time
someone questions the faith.
>> It's like people who before the rubble of the WTC was cold were claiming
>> Nostradamus predicted it. The whole planet could be covered by glaciers
>> and sci.environment would be loaded with posts that it was the result
>> of americans puting too much CO2 in the air.
> This is a particularly rediculous statement because as anyone who has done
> the least bit of study of the issue is aware, the CO2 levels are
> self-correcting.
Read what I wrote again. It's an OBSERVATION of sci.environment regulars.
You might as well have written a response about greys cutting cattle in
Nebraska because it makes as much sense as what you wrote as a response
to my observation of sci.environment regulars.
> Elevated CO2 levels are recognized to be created by burning of fossil fuels
> which releases the stored carbon in the fuel.
> However, all fossil fuel supplies are infinite, and many people are now
> predicting that fossil fuel extraction globally is past it's peak, and that
> within the next 50 years, it will become economically impossible to use
> it for fuel. (in short, the cost of extracting a barrel of oil from oil
> shale,
> or whatever will take the same energy as produced by a barrel of oil,
> thus relegating oil production for nothing more than a feedstock for
> lubricants or plastic manufacture) In other words, while we still will have
> plenty of oil, none of what's left will produce an energy benefit when
> it's extracted.
> Once fossil fuels stop being burned, the extra CO2 input into the Earth's
> system will cease, and plantlife on the Earth's surface will quickly return
> the CO2 levels back to what they were before large scale fossil fuel
> burning commenced in the 20th century.
> The more reasonable speculation on the mankind-tie-into-global-warming
> is that pollution is reducing the reflective ability of the snow on the
> polar icecaps, thus increasing the heat energy in sunlight being absorbed.
That's nice but has nothing to do with the point I've made.
>> This is cross posted into sci.environment, one of the biggest political
>> newsgroups of usenet.
> I don't see sci.environment in the header list, nor am I posting from there.
It was before the thread was revived or maybe it was one of the other
offshoots or global warming threads. Same difference though.
>> I see you want to divert into some kind of word game. Sorry, I'm not
>> going to play.
> 6 lines earlier you admit to playing word games with your political
> definition statement, now you claim your not doing it? Amazing!
WTF? Support your claim.
>> Global Warming as we know it, what it effectively is
>> and has become, is part of a greater scientific religion
> religions are not scientific.
You don't understand then what happens in science to those that
don't follow the popular path. No funding, wrecked careers, etc.
>> Here is where I get called a conservative corporate -----, the devil
>> worshipers of this religon because I question it's core beliefs. Thanks
>> for proving my point.
> Hmm - when did I say this? Straw man, straw man. We aren't in
> Debating 101, you need to be a bit more educated in your response.
This coming from someone who has been making up arguements for me and
then shooting those arguements down? Laughable. The quoted material
above is the response to where you were once again claiming that I
was attacking global warming. What typically follows that is a personal
attack like I described. I question, but in questioning people like
you begin to use terms like "other side". That any questioning
automatically puts a person on that "other side" of planet raping
conservative corporate -----s who fund bogus research to keep their
profit machines going.
>> Look at this thread, look at how I produced scientific papers that
>> questioned the beliefs of the religon and look at the response I got.
>> I don't even recall anyone else bothering to find cites. Simply spouted
>> religious cannon at me. I question, and that get's peoples panties in a
>> bunch.
> I was not aware that everyone arguing with you was a woman, or was
> a transvestite male wearing panties.
>
> Note the use of ridicule based on an assumption of the underclothes wearing
> habits of your audience. Again, a typical sci.environment response.
I note how you play dumb and side track into a saying rather than make
any attempt to address the facts of what happens when someone questions
the global warming. Here's a hint, replace 'gets their panties in a bunch'
with 'makes them angry and/or defensive'. Happy?
>> > Why if all our
>> > children had the same attitude, then by the time that someone got around to
>> > dealing with the problem, it would be too late to do anything about.
>> > Ah, now I see the general plan here!
>> Why don't you come out and call me a planet raping conservative corporate
>> ----- that will take everything he can now with no concern for the future.
> Because all the planet raping conservative corporate -----s I've run into
> think a lot more logically than you seem to be displaying here.
And here we go again, anyone who questions the faith is stupid, illogical,
mentally unbalanced, etc.
>> > Brent, you just don't have any faith in humanity. Weather control of the
>> > Earth is not an unsolvable problem. There is nothing physical about
>> > the idea that anyone has proposed that is impossible.
>> That's nice, but has as much relevance as the greys abducting cattle
>> in texas since I didn't make any arguements regarding weather control.
> Assuming that the world's reputable scientists eventually determine
> that the global warming that is caused by whatever it's caused cannot
> be self-corrected by the Earth, and thus mankind must do something
> about the problem, the only solution we are going to have available is
> weather control of the Earth's weather.
Next you'll start talking about chem-trails.
> Naturally the greenies will continue to claim that reducing fossil fuel
> use is the only way to fix global warming, but anyone of intelligence
> knows this is rediculous daydreaming. The only thing that will reduce
> fossil fuel use is when we run out of it.
They claim that people in the *western* nations reducing fossil fuel
use is the only way to fix global warming. People in developing countries
are free to make up the difference and add more on top of that.
> So, as you can see, weather control DOES have GREAT relevance
> to the debate. I understand that it's a solution that's at right angles
> to the greenies and anti-greenies such as yourself who want to
Here we go with the labels again. Like I said before, irl I am probably
more 'green' than the greenies like Dr. Parker.
> keep the global warming debate centered on a debate as to whether
> or not it's appropriate to continue to use fossil fuels. So I can
> excuse you for not having the quickness of mind to grasp that
> there's more than one solution to the problem of global warming
> than the one the greenies want to see implemented.
Oh I know there is more to it, but you are using this built up personal
attack of yours to divert from my point. Global warming is now part
of a greater religion like structure where anyone who questions it
is an enemy of the faith. You prove this simply with the what you've
done to attempt to discredit me and divert the discussion away from
my point.
>> When I get a reactions like yours, it indicates that the foundations are weak
>> and based in faith.
> What is wrong with that? My responses DO happen to be based in faith!
> I have faith that once the world's scientists all agree that we have to do
> something to lower the temperature of the globe, because the globe's
> systems to do this aren't working anymore, that the world's scientists
> will find a way to do it.
You unquestionally follow a belief system that is endorsed by scientists.
I question it. And when I question it, I get responses like yours that
try to discredit me, attack me personally, etc. And that's the response
I get for asking questions. Not only that, I have to show research and
make cites just to show I have a reason for questioning! That's not
science, least not the way it's supposed to be. That's religion.
Instead of getting good, solid, scientific responses and cites, I get
attack like below:
> I feel sorry for people like you. Obviously you are very threatened by the
> idea of global warming, probably because your afraid that if it's proven to
> be happening, that humanity is too slow, stupid, and frail to do anything
> about correcting it. So if you can make yourself believe that the
> temperature of the globe isn't increasing - then the entire problem
> goes away. As I said before, have a little more faith in the ingenuity
> of Man, man!
Enjoy your faith in the new religion.