RE: CO2 levels hit a record high..

RE: CO2 levels hit a record high.. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

markyugen -> RE: CO2 levels hit a record high.. (5/10/2015 6:23:55 PM)
The problem that certain righties have with the theory of climate change is that they see it as a buzzword for socialism, as G Will quite unabashedly admits in his ridiculous, fact-deprived article. No amount of scientific study or physical evidence is going to wrench a climate change denier from his stubbornly held belief that CC is simply a plot to impose socialism on the world.

HunterCA -> RE: CO2 levels hit a record high.. (5/10/2015 6:26:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers What I want is some of those Koch million$ and don't mean a 6 fig. grant, I am talking million$ so I can deny global warming too, the evidence of which continues to show up...all over the fucking world, so I have plenty of work ahead of me. Lol, yes you do! But, then, for every Koch brother there are five or six lefty loony billionaires handing out money to tout global warming...oh that's right, the globe hasn't warmed in 18 years so we call it climate change now...[:)]. Silly me. So MrRodgers, why don't you just go drink their kool aide. Plenty of people are. Hey PS, I can do this for days. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-the-climate-pact-swindle/2014/11/20/f78f6474-70e9-11e4-8808-afaa1e3a33ef_story.html Why haven't you been familiar with any of this? Hey nitwit...err sorry...Tkman, do you know what a useful idiot is? Well, gosh, of course not. In the golden old days when communists ruled large swaths of the planet, before they all went bankrupt, Joesph Stalin used to have these people who worked very hard to subvert Russian institutions for him. Those people eventually all were sent to the Gulags when their institutions were subverted. Stalin called them useful idiots. Does it frighten you to see that maybe your life passion is just being a useful idiot? Naa, probably not. That would take independent thinking.

HunterCA -> RE: CO2 levels hit a record high.. (5/10/2015 6:30:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: markyugen The problem that certain righties have with the theory of climate change is that they see it as a buzzword for socialism, as G Will quite unabashedly admits in his ridiculous, fact-deprived article. No amount of scientific study or physical evidence is going to wrench a climate change denier from his stubbornly held belief that CC is simply a plot to impose socialism on the world. Wow....the loony trumpet sounded. Took your head of of the sand did you. Flung your best shot. Provided lots and lots of data to back it up too I see. Dude, I'm sooo hurt. I'm going to go take some ibuprofen for my butt hurt you caused. Gees. Oh, you forgot to say nener nener.

Sanity -> RE: CO2 levels hit a record high.. (5/10/2015 6:45:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HunterCA http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/04/28/george_will_global_warming_is_socialism_by_the_back_door.html He rightly calls the global warming cult a religion Then in the last paragraph cuts the cultists to the quick: quote: One other thing, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change produced a report. The New Yorker, which is impeccably alarmed about global warming, the writer being their specialist began her story something like this: "In a report that should be but unfortunately will not be viewed as the final word in climate science." Now, just think about that. The final word in microbiology, the final word in quantum mechanics. There are no final words in science. But there you have the deeply anti-scientific temper of the global warming advocacy groups: Final words.

HunterCA -> RE: CO2 levels hit a record high.. (5/10/2015 7:09:03 PM)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3251370/posts http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/25/2012-un-climate-talks-qatar_n_2188048.html http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/dec/12/lima-climate-change-talks-stumble-cash-emissions-cuts http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/audio/2013/nov/11/climate-talks-cop19-warsaw-podcast http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9130.html http://www.independentsentinel.com/pope-francis-will-fight-for-climate-change-funded-by-wealth-redistribution/

HunterCA -> RE: CO2 levels hit a record high.. (5/10/2015 7:34:34 PM)
Of course you always have to love this. Don't you love it too markyugen? Phd ecology Cofounder Greenpiece http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2015/03/20/why-i-am-climate-change-skeptic http://www.inquisitr.com/1946337/greenpeace-founder-climate-change-is-actually-climate-hysteria/#image_load http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=415b9cde-e664-4628-8fb5-ae3951197d03

HunterCA -> RE: CO2 levels hit a record high.. (5/10/2015 7:39:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Lmao at "leftist redistribution of wealth scam" our newly elected Conservative Government have been poushing it as a wealth/job creation scheme for the last five years. (And yes sanity, I did vote for cameron in 2010. The suggestion it is just a leftist wealth redistribution scam is laughable. Carry on with your far right dogma. Dogma carried on. 15 links added. I could do more. Conservative papers, liberal papers, Princeton book review, Phd in ecology and cofounder of Greepiece. You name it big boy, dogma shown.

HunterCA -> RE: CO2 levels hit a record high.. (5/10/2015 7:50:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 It's only his area of study when he has something to gain from it politically, like all cons [8\|] Sorry, I should clarify things before it gets out of hand.... I imply he's an environmental engineer (given he has said so) and thus, this topic should be along his field of study. While I may not have a positive viewpoint of Hunter, I'm not stating this to be a punk or pain. My field of study is business. That includes taxes, finances, accounting, sales, marketing, politics, policy, leadership, logistics, customer support, management, small business study, etc. That I have branched out into areas like medicine, technology, soft & hard ware, constitutional politics, etc; because you never know when information not in your original field will come in handy. I guess I'm puzzled that he has these skills and experiences, yet states this isn't even his realm of study. I've known quite a few enviromental engineers that would talk me to death (from boredom) on the fine details. Joether. Once again I'd like to commend you on a reasonable post. I responded and things got a little squirrelly there. But I added some links to go along with my thoughts. We seem, for the moment, to be back on thread and I don't want you to think anything between now and back then negated my appreciation for your questions. I'll carry forth with our rather civil discussion if you wish.

Aylee -> RE: CO2 levels hit a record high.. (5/10/2015 8:13:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: markyugen The problem that certain righties have with the theory of climate change is that they see it as a buzzword for socialism, as G Will quite unabashedly admits in his ridiculous, fact-deprived article. No amount of scientific study or physical evidence is going to wrench a climate change denier from his stubbornly held belief that CC is simply a plot to impose socialism on the world. I’ll believe it’s a crisis when the people who tell me it’s a crisis start acting like it’s a crisis. It used to be “global warming,” which was awkward because the globe wasn’t getting warmer. So it became “climate change.” But that’s awkward and not very scary. No one is denying climate change. No one is anti-climate change. However, denying a crisis or being anti-crisis in regards to such? Well, YES!

joether -> RE: CO2 levels hit a record high.. (5/10/2015 8:45:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HunterCA quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: HunterCA Not my area of expertise, but I offer this: http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=77 Your an environmental engineer. How is this NOT your area of study? Well, for you and nitwit Tkman below, in order to do my work I really don't have to understand the weather or climate five million years ago. I didn't have to make a reply to TKman and explain what I was getting at. I did it as a nice gesture and thought towards you. Apparently you didnt get that concept. I didnt mention your work, did I? What I did mention is that you, as an environmental engineer would most likely have a broad field of studies under your belt (30+ years would do it). That you would understand the material and report on it like a professional. If all of this is untrue; then by apologizes for believing you might have something neat to add to the discussion.

HunterCA -> RE: CO2 levels hit a record high.. (5/10/2015 8:58:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: HunterCA quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: HunterCA Not my area of expertise, but I offer this: http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=77 Your an environmental engineer. How is this NOT your area of study? Well, for you and nitwit Tkman below, in order to do my work I really don't have to understand the weather or climate five million years ago. I didn't have to make a reply to TKman and explain what I was getting at. I did it as a nice gesture and thought towards you. Apparently you didnt get that concept. I didnt mention your work, did I? What I did mention is that you, as an environmental engineer would most likely have a broad field of studies under your belt (30+ years would do it). That you would understand the material and report on it like a professional. If all of this is untrue; then by apologizes for believing you might have something neat to add to the discussion. Ahh! So,here I was getting all warm and fuzzy about you actually being reasonable for once and you want to take it all back now. I've actually added quiet a bit here from a lot of sources. But, you are correct with respect to the thread topic. I was merely pointing out that CO2 levels have been higher in the past and should be looked at now in a historical perspective and not as a cult religion like Tkman does. So, would you like me to now take back all the warm fuzzier I offered you? Would that make you feel better? You know, you can add something if you wish. I have actually added some scientific perspective. Maybe you can as well.

joether -> RE: CO2 levels hit a record high.. (5/10/2015 8:59:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HunterCA Of course you always have to love this. Don't you love it too markyugen? Phd ecology Cofounder Greenpiece http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2015/03/20/why-i-am-climate-change-skeptic http://www.inquisitr.com/1946337/greenpeace-founder-climate-change-is-actually-climate-hysteria/#image_load http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=415b9cde-e664-4628-8fb5-ae3951197d03 You Really Should Check On Details of Mr. Moore.... ...Because He Didn't Co-Found The Organization. Either you didnt research Mr. Moore well enough, in which case your an idiot. Or you did research it and know what I'm telling everyone else here; in which case your being intellectually dishonest. For a conservative it comes down to two things: Either being an idiot or intellectually dishonest on information in a discussion. Which one are you?

HunterCA -> RE: CO2 levels hit a record high.. (5/10/2015 9:05:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: HunterCA Of course you always have to love this. Don't you love it too markyugen? Phd ecology Cofounder Greenpiece http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2015/03/20/why-i-am-climate-change-skeptic http://www.inquisitr.com/1946337/greenpeace-founder-climate-change-is-actually-climate-hysteria/#image_load http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=415b9cde-e664-4628-8fb5-ae3951197d03 You Really Should Check On Details of Mr. Moore.... ...Because He Didn't Co-Found The Organization. Either you didnt research Mr. Moore well enough, in which case your an idiot. Or you did research it and know what I'm telling everyone else here; in which case your being intellectually dishonest. For a conservative it comes down to two things: Either being an idiot or intellectually dishonest on information in a discussion. Which one are you? Hum, each of my links says something like this: [Editor’s Note: Patrick Moore, Ph.D., has been a leader in international environmentalism for more than 40 years. He cofounded Greenpeace and currently serves as chair of Allow Golden Rice. Moore received the 2014 Speaks Truth to Power Award at the Ninth International Conference on Climate Change, July 8, in Las Vegas. Watch his presentation about this piece at the video player to the left.] I wonder what your sources are?

HunterCA -> RE: CO2 levels hit a record high.. (5/10/2015 9:09:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: HunterCA Of course you always have to love this. Don't you love it too markyugen? Phd ecology Cofounder Greenpiece http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2015/03/20/why-i-am-climate-change-skeptic http://www.inquisitr.com/1946337/greenpeace-founder-climate-change-is-actually-climate-hysteria/#image_load http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=415b9cde-e664-4628-8fb5-ae3951197d03 You Really Should Check On Details of Mr. Moore.... ...Because He Didn't Co-Found The Organization. Either you didnt research Mr. Moore well enough, in which case your an idiot. Or you did research it and know what I'm telling everyone else here; in which case your being intellectually dishonest. For a conservative it comes down to two things: Either being an idiot or intellectually dishonest on information in a discussion. Which one are you? Although in his testimony to the senate he said this: February 25, 2014 “Natural Resource Adaptation: Protecting ecosystems and economies” Chairman Whitehouse, Ranking Member Inhofe, and members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify at today’s hearing. In 1971, as a PhD student in ecology I joined an activist group in a church basement in Vancouver Canada and sailed on a small boat across the Pacific to protest US Hydrogen bomb testing in Alaska. We became Greenpeace. After 15 years in the top committee I had to leave as Greenpeace took a sharp turn to the political left, and began to adopt policies that I could not accept from my scientific perspective. Climate change was not an issue when I abandoned Greenpeace, but it certainly is now. Do you think when he said, "We became Greenpeace" he was lying to congress or he was not part of the founding that occurred while he was an active participant?

HunterCA -> RE: CO2 levels hit a record high.. (5/10/2015 9:11:22 PM)
You'll have to explain Joe. It seems you know and I don't. Since you mentioned research, perhaps you have it handy?

Kirata -> RE: CO2 levels hit a record high.. (5/10/2015 9:19:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: HunterCA Of course you always have to love this. Don't you love it too markyugen? Phd ecology Cofounder Greenpiece http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2015/03/20/why-i-am-climate-change-skeptic http://www.inquisitr.com/1946337/greenpeace-founder-climate-change-is-actually-climate-hysteria/#image_load http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=415b9cde-e664-4628-8fb5-ae3951197d03 You Really Should Check On Details of Mr. Moore.... ...Because He Didn't Co-Found The Organization. Either you didnt research Mr. Moore well enough, in which case your an idiot. Or you did research it and know what I'm telling everyone else here; in which case your being intellectually dishonest. For a conservative it comes down to two things: Either being an idiot or intellectually dishonest on information in a discussion. Which one are you? Well he was one of the founders until he changed his views. Then, with a wink and a nod he wasn't anymore. Greenpeace used to list Moore among "founders and first members" of but has later stated that while Moore was a significant early member, he was not among the founders of Greenpeace in 1970. ~Source Everybody loves magic! K.

joether -> RE: CO2 levels hit a record high.. (5/10/2015 9:30:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HunterCA Ahh! So,here I was getting all warm and fuzzy about you actually being reasonable for once and you want to take it all back now. I've actually added quiet a bit here from a lot of sources. But, you are correct with respect to the thread topic. I was merely pointing out that CO2 levels have been higher in the past and should be looked at now in a historical perspective and not as a cult religion like Tkman does. So, would you like me to now take back all the warm fuzzier I offered you? Would that make you feel better? You know, you can add something if you wish. I have actually added some scientific perspective. Maybe you can as well. I've been reading your 'sources'. They are high school-ish levels of bullshit. I didn't study environmental science in college, and I can spot the bullshit. Ok, I can spot it since leaving college I had to pick up knowledge from many other areas (its what happens when you invest money). That you would try to past this stuff off thinking people like me and others would accept it without researching it; shows a distinct lack of consideration to your audience. If you post a link on here, people are going to check it. Likewise, expect those that do not agree with you, to look up information that debunks your views/sources. I do not agree with the Climate Change cult mentality. I think it undermines perspective and objectiveness in science. That if information is found that would debunk the central understanding of the theory; that it is published. An that those that found this material explain everything about it. That other scientists run their own tests. If they find their results are much like the persons debunking the theory's central premise, that's one thing. If they find other results, that's another. If the knowledge is true and the evidence supports it, the scientific community will simply add in the new understanding and then try to explain what all of it means (new stuff + previous knowledge). Not always an easy concept. If we minus out all the political bullshit on all sides (yes there is not just two sides in this conflict of interest). An look at the evidence objectively it shows two things for certain: A ) That the definition of the theory is pretty correct based on the evidence. B ) That with almost every variable mankind can think to test and remove from the equation; we are left with humans creating problems. So the real question becomes: What do we do, knowing this information? That is the point scientists are at right now. But science does not exist in a vacuum. The problem that politics brings to this issue is the number of uneducated people to the concept. These people have little to no real understanding of the evidence and experiments conducted world wide. That people are taking a pre-'high school' understanding of science and being forced to understand very advance levels of material and concepts from many difference scientific disciplines. It would be like explaining a modern day firearm to a cave man; that assumes you have caught up to them after they ran away from the sound of it firing once or twice! Another big component to all this is business. Business tends to stretch, modify, and even hinder objective scientific research towards the masses. The Tobacco industry tried for generations to stand their products were not harmful to the human body. Whether by direct or indirect contact. We know now that this deception was done to garner more profits. Further, these companies knew that their products were bad for consumption! There are businesses that have much to gain by keeping people uninformed and misinformed on the scientific evidence already known. So scientists really have a two frontal war to handle. While both fronts have similar 'troops', they are different in how they are handled. For a while scientists have been very slow to explain information. There 'foray' in the beginning was a complete disaster. They tried to just explain the material they knew; not realizing their audience is not full of PH.D. folks. Their second attempt was a failure as well. That was of dumbing the information down so that 'The Low Information Voter' could understand. The problem here was the process left much in the way of good material out. Or the material was 'dumb down' to the point that it lost its 'scientific weight' or seriousness of the understanding. So scientists are now explaining these concepts at different educational levels in the hope that information is conveyed reasonably to the same direction of knowledge. Whether this will ultimately work is hard to say right now. But for you....please look at the sources you post. If the stuff comes from anything 'right wing', your chances of being taken seriously diminished. When I post sources, I do weigh where the information is coming from. There have been times when the information was good, but it came from a seriously left-wing organization. That if I could find the information from a more politically neutral location, I would use that instead. All I'm asking is just be conscious of the sources.

joether -> RE: CO2 levels hit a record high.. (5/10/2015 9:39:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: HunterCA Of course you always have to love this. Don't you love it too markyugen? Phd ecology Cofounder Greenpiece http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2015/03/20/why-i-am-climate-change-skeptic http://www.inquisitr.com/1946337/greenpeace-founder-climate-change-is-actually-climate-hysteria/#image_load http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=415b9cde-e664-4628-8fb5-ae3951197d03 You Really Should Check On Details of Mr. Moore.... ...Because He Didn't Co-Found The Organization. Either you didnt research Mr. Moore well enough, in which case your an idiot. Or you did research it and know what I'm telling everyone else here; in which case your being intellectually dishonest. For a conservative it comes down to two things: Either being an idiot or intellectually dishonest on information in a discussion. Which one are you? Well he was one of the founders until he changed his views. Then, with a wink and a nod he wasn't anymore. Greenpeace used to list Moore among "founders and first members" of but has later stated that while Moore was a significant early member, he was not among the founders of Greenpeace in 1970. ~Source Everybody loves magic! Yes....FIRST MEMBERS. Here is the list of FOUNDERS: Phil Cotes, Irving Stowe, and Jim Bohlen. Do you see 'Patrick Moore' in any of those three co-founders names? If you had read the second article (that would be the second link) fully; you would understand this concept. Mr. Moore wrote a letter asking to join this organization AFTER it was an organization. That would imply him being one of the first members and NOT a co-founder of the organization. Maybe you should try READING your own sources. Because it quite clearly states that. Hell...YOU QUOTED IT! The two sources of mine and the third from yours, explain....WHY....Mr. Moore left.

joether -> RE: CO2 levels hit a record high.. (5/10/2015 9:45:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HunterCA Although in his testimony to the senate he said this: February 25, 2014 “Natural Resource Adaptation: Protecting ecosystems and economies” Chairman Whitehouse, Ranking Member Inhofe, and members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify at today’s hearing. In 1971, as a PhD student in ecology I joined an activist group in a church basement in Vancouver Canada and sailed on a small boat across the Pacific to protest US Hydrogen bomb testing in Alaska. We became Greenpeace. After 15 years in the top committee I had to leave as Greenpeace took a sharp turn to the political left, and began to adopt policies that I could not accept from my scientific perspective. Climate change was not an issue when I abandoned Greenpeace, but it certainly is now. Do you think when he said, "We became Greenpeace" he was lying to congress or he was not part of the founding that occurred while he was an active participant? He didn't say he was a founder or co-founder of Greenpeace. That would be a lie. However in many publications, he does seem to hint if not say directly that is the case. When your under oath before Congress; little slips like that will land you in contempt. His lie is small potatoes in the grand scheme of things. One of those "if we have nothing better to do with our time; let's fry this guy'. Except that finding such time never comes up; and no one really cares. There exists enough information that shows Mr. Moore for what and how he has done things in life. Those taking the political 'left' view of Climate Change will say he's a corporate sell out. Those on the 'right' will state he's an honest skeptic. Take of it what you wish in the end.

joether -> RE: CO2 levels hit a record high.. (5/10/2015 9:50:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HunterCA I wonder what your sources are? Since he was part of Greenpeace at one point, it made logical sense to see if the organization published any sort of written detail on the individual in question. The second source was simply deductive thinking on the topic. The logic being 'OK, who WERE the founding people of Greenpeace?" and "What is Mr. Moore's role in all of this?". The original letter by Mr. Moore was an unexpected detail I found interesting.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875