Not to change the subject (or to change it) - ridiculous how many people believe that Y2K was a hoax. It's been 7 years and still a ton of people are ignorant of just how serious and damaging it could've been, if it wasn't for tremendous efforts of companies and their programmers for years to make sure the damn thing passes without a whimper & governmental (at least US) agencies regulations. You guys just don't like Al Gore...... Seems like all this denial about global warming is really a visceral response to the Goracle. It's so damn obvious that we are playing havoc with the ecology of the earth, and it will just get worse with the "global economy", and all the big populations driving cars etc. when they formally rode bikes etc. There is no doubt that us "humming beings" are a detriment to the natural order of things. Why all the angst about the fact that global warming is what it is.....a result of human activity. I mentioned the recent article in Newsweek (read it yet?). One of the big issues that you don't seem to want to address is the fact that corporations, ... RS, I'm not sure anyone dismissed Y2K as a hoax. I think the hoax part was the alarmism behind Y2K. I know people who had their basements stocked with food and water. In fact, my father was one of the programmers you are speaking of and he was not alarmed. He did have some concern for certain sectors, especially defense contractors, one of which was his client. schriebe, learn the science about global warming, learn the facts, look at all the scientists that disagree with the the alarmism, and by the way give me a few scientists that say anthropogenic global warming is a fact. Let's say that global warming turns out to be false. Will we be any worse for cleaning up our home? Now let's say that global warming turns out to be true. Will we be any worse for cleaning up our home? Let's say that global warming turns out to be false. Will we be any worse for cleaning up our home?No, we will not be worse off. We are much cleaner today than we were 100 years ago and fearmongering is not a good way to acheive an agend everyone agrees with. Sothat leaves another agenda, which is the real motive behind AGW. Now let's say that global warming turns out to be true. Will we be any worse for cleaning up our home?It is true, it is natural, and to say there will be disastrous consequences is pure alarmism. The Earth'c climate is controlled mostly by solar cycles and obliquity. There is no perfect temperature for the Earth it has constatntly cha... Now let's say that global warming turns out to be true. Will we be any worse for cleaning up our home? A simple yes or no will be fine. You can hopefully clean your home without my help. Your question is based in ignorance 1. we are cleaner than 20 years ago and we will be cleaner 20 years from now. 2.no matter how much cleaning we do. it will have absolutely ZERO impact on global warming. So, turn your own air conditioner OFF and go vegan, if it makes you feel better, and leave everyone else alone you ignorant,fear-mongering, alarmist. We are talking about global warming and you want to start all this irrational, appeal to emotion ignorance. Idiocy! You need to back up and quit with all the IF, BUT, WHAT IF, IF WE COULD, LET"S SAY, TURN"S OUT crap! Oh dear, oh dear. Willie, just calm down. You're making a show of yourself Let's say that global warming turns out to be false. Will we be any worse for cleaning up our home?Yes. The economic impact would make us much worse off, and the fact we could be spending that money and accomplishing absolutely nothing is asinine. Not to mention if we actually manage to lower or reverse what is a natural trend and end up driving ourselves into the next ice age when the next cooling trend comes about. Fact is, it was hotter in the 1930s than it is now. With all this so called global warming, we aren't any warmer than we were seventy years ago. There is no evidence that this isn't a natural trend. The climate is always changing and it would probably be more p... Fact is, it was hotter in the 1930s than it is now. With all this soUhhh. Actually no. Even discounting the data that was collected during the years 2000 -last month, the average has shown a net increase over the last century. http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20070208/ Interesting graphic there. Problem is that the graph is made using the old data so it is worthless. As I said, even DISCOUNTING the years before 2000 and Y2K, it still shows an upward trend. Not only is it worthless, it is moronic. look at the time-scale. It is also moronic to have the assumption that the Earth's temperature should be static. Not to mention the correlation with warming on other planets. So it's not worth cleaning up our act. Hmm. Interesting. absolutely not. Actually, the planet's not dirty. Sure we could clean up some areas, but that has nothing to do with AGW. Damn Willhelm! I'm a liberal, but studied a great deal of the earth sciences in the '80s. It's GREAT to see one who knows that we are being led down a path that is driven by political control and money. Your comments are refreshing: Keep up the good work. Not all liberal concepts or beliefs are correct and I am positive one can find a few problems with conservative thinking. Somewhere between the two is considered and cogent thinking. Let's say that global warming turns out to be false.Is that a WIN, WIN argument, AcesLucky? Surely unfair!? A bit like cleaning up your house without expecting visitors, but just in case? You are right and wrong. Yes the earth does have periods of warming and cooling. The point is that the warming cycle over the last years of i'ts cycle is higher, this is the worry,wether it be global warming or not , then it wont hurt to er on the side of caution. righthand A bit like cleaning up your house without expecting visitors, but just in case?It's more like: Let's say 50% of astronomers and astrophysicists clearly point out a meteor is headed directly for our planet. And if it hits us, it'll destroy all human life completely. The other 50% (these are generous divisions, mind you) say it's just alarmist; that the meteor will miss our planet by more than 200,000 miles. It'll take 50 years before hitting or passing us. Do we try to prepare...just in case? Or do we mosey along raking in the profits by ignoring it? Oh, so every time a group of alarmist and greedy scientists come out with some chicken-little theory we have to pour billions of dollars into and wreck the third world. Good policy ! Actually, the facts will bear out the truth, as they do in this case. Whether you want to accept the facts or not is up to you. By the way AL, you continuing down this road of hypotheticals is part of the problem. Try dealing with a few facts. By the way AL, you continuing down this road of hypotheticals is part of the problem. Try dealing with a few facts.The information that agrees with you, or the information that doesn't? Not only is it worthless, it is moronic. look at the time-scale.Yes, Willie? NASA is moronic. Maybe they would let you come work there and straighten them all out. The data before the Y2K is still good. the graph doesn't even start untiol 2000. That is also a typical time scale for graphs. I'm not sure I see your point. That is also a typical time scale for graphs.Regarding global climate change? That is a joke ! The information that agrees with you, or the information that doesn't?The facts ! I'm sure they will come out with a newer, shinier one that will not be any more to your liking than this one. Ever heard the phrase, "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater? Hudgal, there are plenty of graphs out there showing the fluctuations of temperature variations. I have no idea what your talking about. By the way, this one is rendered meaningless and the others show it has been much warmer in the past. Face it, with the 1998 data being wrong the alarmists had always said: "the Earth has never warmed this fast." Well, now it turns out that not only is not fast, over the past 100 years, it may very well have not warmed very much at all. @schreibe, I had no idea you were a Y2K expert... We would be better served using our resources to clean up real pollution instead of spending them all on trying to reduce CO2 which still hasn't been proven to have any major effect on global climate change. With the money they want to spend on changes that even man made global warming believers would only bring about a very small change, we could do much more good combating real pollution that is really effecting our environment. willhelm The information that agrees with you, or the information that doesn't? So if it doesn't agree with you, it's not a fact, correct? Because what are the vast multitude of scientists that DON'T agree with you, using? If it is a fact, it is a fact. I agree with facts. I agree with factual interpretations. I agree with correct interpretations of all facts. I agree with theories based on facts. I agree with laws, based on theories, based on facts. I agree with facts of potentiality. I agree with hypothetically feasible data that support facts of potentiality. I agree with suppositions that are firmly rooted in facts, I agree with interpretation based on logically applied facts. I factually support facts. I factually support calling lies BOVINE SCATOLOGY. In your world there are no facts, there is feamongering FACTUALLY evident ignorance. You guys just don't like Al Gore......Yeah.....so? What's too like?  Oh, Wilhelm, let me help you with your editing. I agree with facts that support my position. I agree with factual interpretations that sopport my ideas. I agree with correct interpretations of all facts, as long as they mesh with my agenda.There. Oh, hudgal1, let me help you with your editing. IThere. People in glass houses..... The Daily Kos has a thorough write-up on the whole issue. I'm sure this will make willie very happy to be able to follow the facts, and put him into hyper-froth overdrive. This diary follows a rumor's spread through the conservative blogosphere. It begins with a story about how a persistent conservative blogger found a minor (but genuine) error in a NASA dataset, and how that error was promptly acknowledged and corrected. This story was told by the original blogger a few days ago, and then retold by other bloggers (with improvements) and again by other bloggers (with more improvements). Yes, I'm just gonna click right on over to The Daily Kos and see what they have to say about it all. Then I'll be informed, sheez! Remember, willie. A mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work unless it is open. And like the parachute in your tired cliche, it is equally useless if not shaped and tethered. Filling a parachute with air for the sake of filling it with air is suicidal unless it is anchored and properly formed. Just as the dogmas you adhere to are tired and worn thin, c_c. I would love to have willie deconstruct the timeline of the critique at the Kos to prove them wrong, but he won't because then he may have to admit he is wrong, as he usually is, caught in his own slavery to dogma. Better to belittle it and have his head comfortably in its usual resting place. It's ironic that you, the boozingbear, talk about belittling someone when you can't even spell willhelm correctly. Look in the mirror prior to accusing someone else. willhelm says it all: quote: "In your world there are no facts, there is feamongering FACTUALLY evident ignorance."Isn't this perfectly consistent with his stance on everything and everybody that disagrees with his world view REGARDLESS of issue? All the world's scientists that strongly support via evidence the warming of our earth are not just wrong, in his world view, but they are also ignorant. And all the facts these scientists use to support their reason, according to willhelm, are also wrong and ignorant. One may wonder, in what branch of science is willhelm's degree. Christian science, perhaps? The only "science" where evidence is not necessary? The only s... You know you really reveal yourself to be quite foolish. There are no scientists that disagree with the evidence. Almost every scientist agrees with the same facts. There is no disagreement on the FACTS. However, lying about the facts, making alarmist interpretations of the facts for funding, and reliance on models that only take into account about 5% of climatic processes is where the disagreement is. Regardless of your willingness to be ignorant, there IS NO consesus and even if there were a consesus it would be because there is NO evidence to show it is a fact. Not knowing what you are talking about IS IGNORANCE and you are prime example. Not knowing what you are talking about IS IGNORANCE and you are prime example....and you are [sic] prime example... Like I said: garbage in, garbage out. Your incessant ad hominems are clearly the extent of your logic. From your favorite source: "Ad hominem is one of the best known of the logical fallacies usually enumerated in introductory logic and critical thinking textbooks." Clearly, you have no logical training from even the most elementary of sources. And it shows. AL, despite your use of the ad hominem to make evident my ad hominem, surely even you understand that the ad hominem does not support an argument and it doesn't detract from an argument. You are an idiot. That is an argument in itself. You supply evidence to that end and to someone with my education and background the proof is QUITE obvious. Now, you can banter about ad hominems all you want. But, it does little to support your case and prove that my ad hominems, against you and other ignorant idiots that peruse CM, not the necessarily the clips in question, are factual. So, pick up your ill-gained self-confidence and learn a few things before you blast off on things you know absolutely no... someone with my education and background the proof is QUITE obvious.Your incessant ad hominems are clearly the extent of your logic. And therein lies the extent of your education. You demonstrate it over and over. You continue to think that calling someone stupid somehow makes you smart. And that's pretty damn stupid. Should I be enjoying this thread as much as I am? You continue to think that calling someone stupid somehow makes you smart.Besides the fact you appear to be, who else have I deemed "stupid" ? By the way, if calling someone stupid makes you feel smart, then I guess that is pretty sad, because I cannot even relate to that comment. Some more facts: Link NASA recently corrected its climate figures after the discovery of inconsistencies in its U.S. temperature data. According to Schmidt, a climate modeler at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and a contributor to the RealClimate blog (posting as "gavin"), the correction resulted in a re-ranking of NASA's list of the warmest years in the United States. For example, whereas 1998 was previously ranked as the warmest year for the United States, it is now ranked second, behind 1934. According to Schmidt, the temperature difference between 1934 and 1998 in the United States -- both before and afte... BR, Once again you show yourself to be a completely ignorant of the facts and hell-bent on staying so. This article answers the points (nonpoints, propaganda, lunacy, ignorance, lies, or whatever else you want to call it) you raise and point out the supreme idiocy of your assertions. Of course I assuming you have no clue what you are talking about, otherwise you would just be a rank liar. article clipped here. Wow, willhelm you seem really bitter that I busted you for incorrectly (or should I say ignorantly or idiotically or moronically) posting an old poll as a new poll the other day. Obviously you are not to be trusted as remotely reliable. No, I don't peruse your clips so my comment did achieve something helpful which was to get you to link something relevant instead of your usual drivel and devolution to insults. Furthermore, I assert nothing my only intention was to show another side of whether the adjustment was STUNNING. I now return you to your name calling. Remember, willie. A mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work unless it is open.Not fair, Bartendingbear. He never pack one in the first place. How could it work? Should I be enjoying this thread as much as I am?Yes, Laceym, like voyeurs, it is fun. It's tempting to join in but it seems unfair somehow. same dickheads, same malice. Watch the language Davboz you just chastised someone else. Don't be a hypocrite. It's even more hypocritical how someone with your writing skills, BR, can actually utter the word hypocrite for the stated sins. When you get these urges - mirrors usually work well. Oh, I know I use words like stupid, moron, idiot, lunatic rantings,... etc. Willhelm has schooled us well. I even participated in the vulgar word usage that was rampant around here for awhile, but it was always after someone else threw the first stone. I'm glad people backed away from that. Davboz had just lectured someone for making fun of jatfla's username. However it wasn't a word considered vulgar. I think I hear flatulence on the TV 3 or 4 times a day. I have even asked a few new users to control foul language and explained to them what had happened around here in the recent past. They seemed to appreciate the head's up. Davboz showed up on one of my clips and said "Hi dipshit". So... Well, if you get civil, we'll have to reciprocate. I don't agree you always start second, but we can respectfully disagree without resorting to harsher language, especially considering the fact that we don't know each other. Nice to see you be civil for a change though... very nice. In my comment, second on the vulgar words (the word in Davboz comment is a vulgar word). 'willhelm' don't let these 'Ad Hominum' arguers get to you. The facts are the facts. All these people can do is attack you personally. It shows where they are coming from! |
View the Top Clips from August 12, 2007
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
||
|
|
|||
|
New from the makers of Clipmarks: Amplify.com - Don't just share the news...Amplify it!
|
|||
