Global Warming .... yes? no?

[HoustonRaven]

Here is one we can all chew on (an I think T and I may actually agree on this one!)

Below, is an article written by the founder of the Weather Channel and Meteorologist, John Coleman. He is the latest in the expanding number of scientists and PhD's who are saying man-made Global Warming is bunk.

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/19842304.html

[jonboy79]

I think only Al Gore would dispute that...

[Greg]

Global warming? Yes.

Man-made? Pfft.

[Mr.Boh]

And smoking does not cause cancer because some industry hired "scientists" said so.

[jonboy79]

Manmade global warming was debunked by the majority of oceanographers, geologists, and climatologists LONG before "An inconvenient Truth"...

These "industry head scientists" you speak of that work towards a proffittable(to them) result in this case where those that were pro- church of manmade gloabl warming. There has NEVER been sufficient evidence to that cause, specifically now with almost 10 years of sustained temperature loss, and increased CO2....

Even the most gung ho, highly Gore funded "scientists" have changed it to climate change, and now attribute our cooling, the recent hurricanes and earthquakes to it...

[HoustonRaven]

And smoking does not cause cancer because some industry hired "scientists" said so.

Ha! What money does John Colemen receive? Or Roy Spencer, former NASA climatologist and current principle climate research scientist University of Alabama at Huntsville (regarded as one of the best meteorlogical schools in the country)? Or 2,700 other scientists and PhD's who signed on to the petition?

If man-made global warming was indeed fact, why is constantly called a "scientific consensus"? That "consensus" is quickly becoming the minority in the scientific community, yet the sheeple, believing everything they see on the news, continue to skip towards Gommorah, thinking they are doing the right thing.

If anyone has a financial stake in the bunk of man-made global warming, it's Mr. Gore.

[Greg]

Was man-made global warming the reason the Vikings could farm in a land they named Greenland that is now ice covered?

[jonboy79]

or the reason the global climate got cold enough later to abandon Greenland completely?

I mena the earth would still be warming up if it weren't for the lack of sun spots....

haha Gore is a funny man that made a LOT of oney to ruin the US economy with this BS...

[Galen Sevinne]

Whether or not man-made global warming is true doesn't undermine the need for better conservation efforts and less dependence on carbon fuels. As well as an end to american-superconsumerism and waste. Escalades, Hummers and the rest.... and the wingnuts over at:

http://www.grassfire.org/

[HoustonRaven]

Whether or not man-made global warming is true doesn't undermine the need for better conservation efforts and less dependence on carbon fuels. As well as an end to american-superconsumerism and waste. Escalades, Hummers and the rest.... and the wingnuts over at:

http://www.grassfire.org/

Could not agree more. A lot conservatives confuse the radical element of Algore's minions with basic (and smart) environmental conservation. As such, they slam things like hybrid technology.

While I disagree with you on the "need" to get off carbon fuels (we need to still be drilling for the next 100+ years), the need to protect and preserve ALL natural resources has been a pillar of the conservative movement dating all the way back to Goldwater.

[Galen Sevinne]

Could not agree more. A lot conservatives confuse the radical element of Algore's minions with basic (and smart) environmental conservation. As such, they slam things like hybrid technology.

While I disagree with you on the "need" to get off carbon fuels (we need to still be drilling for the next 100+ years),.

I am confused how conservatives create a platform of fear and paranoia to re-elect Bush but then support endless use of carbon fuels which at the current time support not only the elements they have coerced us into fearing but also new and emerging latin american problems.

Carbon fuels might not be such the environmental problem but they sure are a political problem and continued reliance upon them make us more vulnerable to world markets as well as extremists.

The topic appears to be setting up for a partisan future quite like abortion. I can listen to the claim that 30,000 scientists deny the impact of human global warming (by the way how many of these 30,000 are high school biology teachers?) but can't you sense that Coleman is a tad angry with Mr. Gore and exposes his conservative roots? Doesn't necessarily make his argument any less convincing but I sure hope people are able to put party allegiance to the side before making their decision on important topics such as carbon fuels.





the need to protect and preserve ALL natural resources has been a pillar of the conservative movement dating all the way back to Goldwater.

Maybe but not for the last 8 years with Dubious. Crippling funding for National Parks, drilling in Alaska, Utah.

Yes, I like strapping on a backpack and heading out into the wilderness for a couple weeks at a time and maybe hugging a few trees along the way. Its one of the few places I find sanity and don't have to avoid being run over by overweight americans, driving Escalades with tacky 22 inch shiny rims talking on their $500 cell phones, sucking down a gallon of fuel every twelve miles with "W" and "I support the Troops" bumper stickers on the suburban tanks while people I know dearly are sucking dust in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting in a war that basically filters down to oil and american overconsumerism.

Too many ironies in contemporary conservative thought for me to find a lot of sympathy.

[Greg]

Carbon fuels might not be such the environmental problem but they sure are a political problem and continued reliance upon them make us more vulnerable to world markets as well as extremists.

Nonsense, we have enough coal in the ground to make Saudi Arabia look barren in carbon fuel resources, and we have enough oil in ANWR, off shore, and in the shale fields out-produce Saudi Arabia.

The problem is the morons in our government who refuse to let us tap into these vast resources, it is complete nonsense.

We should also be building nuclear power plants.


Maybe but not for the last 8 years with Dubious. Crippling funding for National Parks, drilling in Alaska, Utah.

What are you talking about? Why do national parks need funding? If they are natural seems to me leaving them alone to nature, which is free, would be what is called for. Second, we are not drilling anywhere new and have not in almost 20 years. And what is the problem with drilling, it doesn't harm the environment, nothing has been done to Alaska or anywhere from drilling, especially with today's technology.

Global warming is now called climate change because the world hasn't warmed in 10 years, IT HAS COOLED and the trend is expected to hold for another decade BECAUSE OF SUN FLUCTUATIONS, which is the cause of these changes.


Yes, I like strapping on a backpack and heading out into the wilderness for a couple weeks at a time and maybe hugging a few trees along the way. Its one of the few places I find sanity and don't have to avoid being run over by overweight americans, driving Escalades with tacky 22 inch shiny rims talking on their $500 cell phones, sucking down a gallon of fuel every twelve miles with "W" and "I support the Troops" bumper stickers on the suburban tanks while people I know dearly are sucking dust in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting in a war that basically filters down to oil and american overconsumerism.

Frankly, I don't give a shit what you like to do because YOU DO NOT GIVE A DAMN ABOUT WHAT OTHERS LIKE TO DO. If somebody else wants to drive a Hummer, tough shit.

I am sick and tired of "tolerant" liberals demanding everybody change for the sake of their beliefs and lifestyles.

[HoustonRaven]

I am confused how conservatives create a platform of fear and paranoia to re-elect Bush but then support endless use of carbon fuels which at the current time support not only the elements they have coerced us into fearing but also new and emerging latin american problems.

Im not surprised you're confused. Reason being is Bush was and never will be a conservative. The only truly conservative things he did in those 8 years was appoint Allito and Roberts to the bench -- and that was after a lot of arm twisting from his base. And what Gore and his ilk are doing isnt fear mongering?


The topic appears to be setting up for a partisan future quite like abortion. I can listen to the claim that 30,000 scientists deny the impact of human global warming (by the way how many of these 30,000 are high school biology teachers?) but can't you sense that Coleman is a tad angry with Mr. Gore and exposes his conservative roots? Doesn't necessarily make his argument any less convincing but I sure hope people are able to put party allegiance to the side before making their decision on important topics such as carbon fuels.

Colemen's motives are somehow questioned simply because he MIGHT be conservtive yet there is no mention of Gore's leanings or the millions in funding he receives (by the way, Colemen is an admitted liberal and was supporter of Hillary Clinton). If anyone needs to put party allegiance away, it's Mr. Gore (who to this day still refuses to debate ANYONE on his stance). I also doubt that many of those "high school biology teachers" are supportive of Mr. Coleman since most are loyal to the teachers unions who take Mr. Gores claims as gospil.


Yes, I like strapping on a backpack and heading out into the wilderness for a couple weeks at a time and maybe hugging a few trees along the way. Its one of the few places I find sanity and don't have to avoid being run over by overweight americans, driving Escalades with tacky 22 inch shiny rims talking on their $500 cell phones, sucking down a gallon of fuel every twelve miles with "W" and "I support the Troops" bumper stickers on the suburban tanks while people I know dearly are sucking dust in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting in a war that basically filters down to oil and american overconsumerism.

Too many ironies in contemporary conservative thought for me to find a lot of sympathy.

Someone who is driving an Escalade, overweight and getting 3 MPH ... well, they MUST be conservatives. Again, I thought liberals were broad minded? Ann Coulter proven correct once again. Seriously though, get out of that oil box that has completely brain-washed you. It's your side and their rabid stance against anything oil that's driving up the cost at the pump -- that, and China going through one of the largest industrial periods this world has ever seen.

Take the time to read (and question the motives of) both sides.

[Galen Sevinne]

I am sick and tired of "tolerant" liberals demanding everybody change for the sake of their beliefs and lifestyles.

I will never make a case that I am tolerant....

Especially of people who appear to need to leave a size 14 footprint behind them when they only wear a size 10 shoe. You can argue for that all you want it just sounds kinda dumb to me.

[Galen Sevinne]

Someone who is driving an Escalade, overweight and getting 3 MPH ... well, they MUST be conservatives..

No but it is consistent with those who yell, "Hey cowboys over here, drill into this here place and pull yourself out some more oil....because we can"


Again, I thought liberals were broad minded? what made you think this? Just because most multi-degreed individuals become progressive in their thinking doesn't necesarily lead them to be broad-minded. In fact, education can have the exact opposite effect and I would be more than happy to point you to the individual who wrote their dissertation on just that topic.



Ann Coulter proven correct once again. sounds like the makings of another original book, "How to tolerate and intolerant Liberal"




It's your side and their rabid stance against anything oil that's driving up the cost at the pump With intention and quite well-orchestrated I think. The utilitarian effects will ultimately be a good thing.



Take the time to read (and question the motives of) both sides.

Nothing truer than that.

[Galen Sevinne]

Im not surprised you're confused. Reason being is Bush was and never will be a conservative.

I am happy to see that even someone with such strong-conservative beliefs has found a comfortable way to distance yourself from this disaster.

[HoustonRaven]

No but it is consistent with those who yell, "Hey cowboys over here, drill into this here place and pull yourself out some more oil....because we can"

One caviot ... "Hey cowboys over here, drill into this here place and pull yourself out some more oil....because we NEED IT". Oil aside, last I checked, we use plastics for all kinds of things. I doubt you are typing on a wood computer?


what made you think this? Just because most multi-degreed individuals become progressive in their thinking doesn't necesarily lead them to be broad-minded. In fact, education can have the exact opposite effect and I would be more than happy to point you to the individual who wrote their dissertation on just that topic.

Lemme see if I get this right .... liberals teaching young skulls full of mush to be "pregressive" (see liberal) in their thinking. And that's not brain-washing how? Send all the dissertations you want -- love to read them. But this is a topic near and dear to my heart since I fought (and won) an incident of a professor failing me because I wrote a paper that was pro-Reagan.

Here are a few sites for you ....

http://www.dradams.org/ ... Dr. Adams is a former liberal turned libertarian and writes extensively on the bias in Colleges. His approach of very tounge and cheek, but somethings he exposes are scary.

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3514.html

http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/

[Greg]

I will never make a case that I am tolerant....

Especially of people who appear to need to leave a size 14 footprint behind them when they only wear a size 10 shoe. You can argue for that all you want it just sounds kinda dumb to me.

How do you feel about Al Gore? Do you know this lying hypocrite's energy usage in his mansion WENT UP 10% LAST YEAR!

If the size 14 is more comfortable for me it is none of your business.

[HoustonRaven]

If the size 14 is more comfortable for me it is none of your business.

Agreed! Liberals go on and on about the gubmint leaving people alone yet it's their tool to bring every man, women and child to their view point. And if they cant get the will of the people, no problem! They will get some liberal judge somewhere to ignore the law and rule in their favor.

[Galen Sevinne]

Agreed! Liberals go on and on about the gubmint leaving people alone yet it's their tool to bring every man, women and child to their view point. And if they cant get the will of the people, no problem! They will get some liberal judge somewhere to ignore the law and rule in their favor.

That's right Tex! I mean Houst. Dem dang liberbals always trying to tell me and my boys how to act civilized and what not. Sheeet. If I wants to drive myself a big truck, wear myself a big ol' hat and piss all over the globe than that's my right. Shit this is america boy...thats how we's do it. Fuck all the rest of 'em.

You're right it is none of my business if you choose to carry yourself in that manner in your world. Hopefully you get the chance to travel outside the country once in a while and live outside of your own ethnocentrism...For you might also find that when one argues that it is their right to be wasteful, there are those who find that again, kinda dumb.

[HoustonRaven]

That's right Tex! I mean Houst. Dem dang liberbals always trying to tell me and my boys how to act civilized and what not. Sheeet. If I wants to drive myself a big truck, wear myself a big ol' hat and piss all over the globe than that's my right. Shit this is america boy...thats how we's do it. Fuck all the rest of 'em.

That's funny since I was born and raised in Columbia and lived in Fells Point up until 2005. Ad hominim attacks are the last bastion of the defeated. You talk about traveling and how it will broaden my thinking yet, by that statement-in-a-box about people from Texas you show your ignorance towards people here AND that you've never set foot in the Lone Star State. By far, I have seen more racism and stereotypical thinking in blue states such as California and Maryland then in Texas.


You're right it is none of my business if you choose to carry yourself in that manner in your world. Hopefully you get the chance to travel outside the country once in a while and live outside of your own ethnocentrism...For you might also find that when one argues that it is their right to be wasteful, there are those who find that again, kinda dumb.

See above. Again, the assumption that conservatives are this least-traveled, uncultured group only shows your bias. And by the way, I've been to 47 of the 50 states and 10 other countries, sampling all kinds of cultures through the course of my career. My passport and military records are a whos who of affluence and 3rd world nightmares. By far, America is a diamond in the rough, hated by those who are simply jealous and admired by people looking for liberty. But why am I telling you this? You're the enlightened liberal who's arrogance towards anything outside your miopic box is telling.

[HoustonRaven]

Another great book on the myth of man-made global warming and how politicians like Algore are driving up the price of energy with their pseudo-science ....

http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm

[Khaine]

Especially of people who appear to need to leave a size 14 footprint behind them when they only wear a size 10 shoe. You can argue for that all you want it just sounds kinda dumb to me.
You can find it dumb all you want. And that is your right. It is also your right to go barefoot, just as it is your right to wear a size 14 shoe for a size 10 foot.
Why does it bother you?


...I have seen more racism and stereotypical thinking in blue states such as California and Maryland then in Texas.

Coming from someone who has lived in MD and currently in CA I can attest to that statement.

[Galen Sevinne]

LOL - I traveled throughout Europe in 1970.

:193:


Now I'll bet a certain liberal in this forum would have shit in his pants in that dept store because he couldn't speak the language.

Since I am the only progressive one here, I imagine that comment was directed at me. You're right I would have had a shit in that department store watching you ask for a cuarto de bano for sure. I just spent the last couple weeks in Nicaragua. If you can't manage Europe in the 70's, I promise you would have great difficulties traveling in a developing central american country where they see americans as imperialistic pigs.


So to say a certain group of people are least traveled and uncultured is pure rediculous at any level. It's like that bimbo teenage Miss America who said people in Europe can't read maps.
:rolling:

I never said a group of people were untraveled. I did say that it is important to travel to undeveloped nations to see how the rest of the world lives. Usually the comments in response to that is about how many states someone has traveled to or been to Europe. That is not what I mean. Go to Andean South America, Central America, the Middle East or Far East. Go to places where the average earned income is $800 a year...where professionals make $2 an hour. Spend time on a farm where there is no electricity or running water...ride on a bus where you travel 100 kilometers in 4 hours because the roads are so shitty. Walk into a center square where painted on the outside of the cathedral walls says "muerte al invasor imperialist" and know that it refers to you...then taste the third world grit in your teeth and the tightness in your intestines because you didn't pay attention for one meal and ate a piece of tomato.

Look at the campesino on the corner who didn't understand that maybe he had a right to own the land he farmed until the likes of an Omar Cabeza explained basic human rights to him only to have those dreams shattered because your almighty Ron Reagan supported south american drug cartels (which now infest our country with their cocaine and heroin) to aid the distribution of arms to Iran to support Contra Rebels (you call them "freedom Fighters") to try to prevent that campesino from owning land. Travel and learn the stories maybe you would be less inclined to roll your eyes.

[HoustonRaven]

Look at the campesino on the corner who didn't understand that maybe he had a right to own the land he farmed until the likes of an Omar Cabeza explained basic human rights to him only to have those dreams shattered because your almighty Ron Reagan supported south american drug cartels (which now infest our country with their cocaine and heroin) to aid the distribution of arms to Iran to support Contra Rebels (you call them "freedom Fighters") to try to prevent that campesino from owning land. Travel and learn the stories maybe you would be less inclined to roll your eyes.

Oy. Even the most liberal of historian have come out and had to admit Reagan was one of the best Presidents we've had.

This kind of talk is nothing more then revisionist propaganda. You're better then this.

[Galen Sevinne]

Oy. Even the most liberal of historian have come out and had to admit Reagan was one of the best Presidents we've had.
You must have mistakenly picked up Carville's rose colored glasses... who are your "most liberal of historians"? Read Chomsky, Grandin, Zinn if you want another view of Reagan. That is not to suggest that Reagan didn't do some great things but he comitted plenty of humanitarian atrocities and basically created the blueprint for the current atrocities created by our Dubious one in Iraq.


This kind of talk is nothing more then revisionist propaganda. If you really think that, you are truly blind and propagandized yourself. Are you suggesting that u.s. support of contra rebels and our methods of support was a shining moment in u.s. history?



You're better then this. Really I am not and to be patronizing is to be arrogant. Arrogance lies at the roots of my disdain for neocon politics and is a core reason why travel to other countries is becoming more difficult for Americans that actually care to learn about other cultures.

[HoustonRaven]

You must have mistakenly picked up Carville's rose colored glasses... who are your "most liberal of historians"? Read Chomsky, Grandin, Zinn if you want another view of Reagan. That is not to suggest that Reagan didn't do some great things but he comitted plenty of humanitarian atrocities and basically created the blueprint for the current atrocities created by our Dubious one in Iraq.

You counter my claim by giving me an admitted socialists, animal advocates who know nothing of history and a man who tarnished his brilliant civil rights work by writing books that we shouldnt have bombed Germany? I smell bias. May as well give me the last 3 soviet premieres. When I say historians, I mean people who see the world even-handed and not some group of extremists that cant see the US objectively.


If you really think that, you are truly blind and propagandized yourself. Are you suggesting that u.s. support of contra rebels and our methods of support was a shining moment in u.s. history?

Yes, actually. But that was Col. North's doing, not Reagan's. Now, I suppose your response will be something along the lines of "If you think Reagan didnt know what was going on, he / you was either blind or dumb." Well, go back and read the transcripts of Col. North's illegal interrogation by Congress (I have) and you learn something.


Really I am not and to be patronizing is to be arrogant. Arrogance lies at the roots of my disdain for neocon politics and is a core reason why travel to other countries is becoming more difficult for Americans that actually care to learn about other cultures.

Couldnt agree with you more about neocon politics. Reagan wasnt a neocon though. With the exception of his stances on immigration, Reagan was a Goldwater conservative. With that said, how can you even speak objectively about Reagan with your admitted disdain towards the right? If you're willing to learn something about the conservative movement other then what socialist has to say, I invite you to read "Upstream" by Alfred Regnery. It's quite obvious you only read what the left wants you to read.

I've been on both sides of the fence, have you?

[jonboy79]

A lot of people give Reagan credit for the economy, and then there are economists...

[Galen Sevinne]

You counter my claim by giving me an admitted socialists, animal advocates who know nothing of history and a man who tarnished his brilliant civil rights work by writing books that we shouldnt have bombed Germany? I smell bias.

You were racking my brain with the animal advocate deal. Couldn't quite remember any of these guys being "animal advocates" yes, Chomsky did experiments with ducks and geese but he wasn't the so called animal advocate. Next time you google references be sure to look a little closer. Greg Grandin NOT Temple Grandin. Funny though...and a good try. You can label people all you want and minimize their contributions because they are not in your conservative circle but that doesn't diminish their intelligence, insights or contributions in any way. You smell bias because you are sitting on your own lap. To say any of those guys are not reputable historians is silly.





Yes, actually. But that was Col. North's doing, not Reagan's. Now, I suppose your response will be something along the lines of "If you think Reagan didnt know what was going on, he / you was either blind or dumb." Well, go back and read the transcripts of Col. North's illegal interrogation by Congress (I have) and you learn something.

"If you think Reagan didnt know what was going on, he / you was either blind or dumb." - couldn't have said it any better myself.... but I would also add "complicit" to your otherwise very possible descriptions of Reagan in regards to Iran-Contra.

I did read the transcripts many years ago but ahhh...I can't ummmm...recall... Oliver North coming out in any way a hero in my memory but then again I was probably biased since I felt sorry for the three Nicaraguans I knew who died trying to protect their coffee fields from the contras...poor bleeding heart liberal that I was back then.


how can you even speak objectively about Reagan with your admitted disdain towards the right? If you're willing to learn something about the conservative movement other then what socialist has to say, I invite you to read "Upstream" by Alfred Regnery. It's quite obvious you only read what the left wants you to read. I've been on both sides of the fence, have you?

I don't really have a huge problem with Reagan except for his handling of the Central America situation which I will point out as one of the bleaker moments in American foriegn policy and the fact that the same tactics of media manipulation, disregard for congressional procedures and lying to the American public are being repeated today in the middle east really sucks but I guess that will take another 20 years to be illustrated for those who care to see it.

The per capita deaths in Nicaragua alone, due to Reagan's policies, would be comparable to about 2.5 million in the United States, which is greater than the total number of casualties in all U.S. wars, including the Civil War and all wars in the 20th century. Add Salvador and Guatamala to those numbers and I have a hard time feeling sorry for Oli at his congressional hearings.

[HoustonRaven]

You can label people all you want and minimize their contributions because they are not in your conservative circle but that doesn't diminish their intelligence, insights or contributions in any way. You smell bias because you are sitting on your own lap. To say any of those guys are not reputable historians is silly.

Ah, the classic liberal tactic of projection -- You throw up three ultra biased people and then accuse ME of being the one clinging to baised information. Go back and re-read what I wrote. I strive for balance when I research anyone and anything. I dont read people that simply tell me things I want ot hear. I read both sides of the argument and make a decision for myself. The blame-America-for-everything list you proped is laughable.


"If you think Reagan didnt know what was going on, he / you was either blind or dumb." - couldn't have said it any better myself.... but I would also add "complicit" to your otherwise very possible descriptions of Reagan in regards to Iran-Contra

Ugh. I see facts dont get in the way of a good debate with you. If you're ok with getting your info from baised sources, be my guest.

[Galen Sevinne]

Go back and re-read what I wrote. I strive for balance when I research anyone and anything.


I reread what you wrote and still came to the conclusion that you googled the wrong person which leads me to believe that you might not even know the individuals I referenced. That being the case, it is hard for me to believe you when you say you strive for balance and an unbiased opinion. How can you criticize a source when you have no experience with their areas of study and don't even know who I am talking about??? Go back to supporting your cheerleader Annie...she is much easier to understand.