Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 12 of 31

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    21,162

    Global Warming .... yes? no?



    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/colemans.../19842304.html
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  2. #2

    Re: Global Warming .... yes? no?

    I think only Al Gore would dispute that...




  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Mt. Arrogance in the middle of the .11 rolling acres of The Windbag Estates
    Posts
    4,114

    Re: Global Warming .... yes? no?

    Global warming? Yes.

    Man-made? Pfft.




  4. #4

    Re: Global Warming .... yes? no?

    And smoking does not cause cancer because some industry hired "scientists" said so.
    Actual user comment from a yahoo sports article:

    On this given sunday you will witnesses why we'll called steeler nation!!!




  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    21,162

    Re: Global Warming .... yes? no?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Boh View Post
    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.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  6. #6

    Re: Global Warming .... yes? no?

    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...




  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Mt. Arrogance in the middle of the .11 rolling acres of The Windbag Estates
    Posts
    4,114

    Re: Global Warming .... yes? no?

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




  8. #8

    Re: Global Warming .... yes? no?

    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...




  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tenuous
    Posts
    4,920

    Re: Global Warming .... yes? no?

    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/








  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    21,162

    Re: Global Warming .... yes? no?

    Quote Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne View Post
    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.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tenuous
    Posts
    4,920

    Re: Global Warming .... yes? no?

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    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.



    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    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.








  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    21,162

    Re: Global Warming .... yes? no?

    Quote Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne View Post
    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.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Russell Street Report Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland