Quote :

"you said anyone who doubts catastropic climate change is painted as having ulterior motives"

no i said they "tend" to get painted...

do you know what "tends" means? but that semantics argument is not important

there has been one consensus talked about in this whole thread...the consensus in the scientific community that global warming is caused by humans...thats the consensus that everyone has talked about for pages and pages...so why you would invent some other consensus is beyond me...i guess its easier to sidetrack than to acknowledge that many people who dont blindly believe in global warming actually are ridiculed and mocked...or maybe you havent been reading any of the many articles in this thread that clealry show that

i mean shit look at the first post of page 11...scuba bolded it for you

[Edited on February 23, 2007 at 4:27 PM. Reason : .]

2/23/2007 4:26:42 PM

There's a three day conference on global warming at NCSU starting on Monday

http://news.ncsu.edu/releases/2007/feb/022.html

"Treetwista", Why don't you put your money where your big mouth is... and go and ask some of these questions?

It really couldn't have been made any easier for you...all these experts, right here at NCSU.

2/23/2007 5:03:09 PM

that looks like a pretty worthless conference.

the first two days, there are no actual climate scientists who talk. and it seems their headliner is a journalist who wrote a book about climate change.

i mean, it's hosted by CHASS. but anyway, the wednesday thing might be worth checking out.

[Edited on February 23, 2007 at 5:06 PM. Reason : .]

2/23/2007 5:05:54 PM

What do you people want? Its a conference on policy foremost, with some notable science discussion on the third day. I'm sure whatever stuff they present will not be cut and pasted from the internet or partisan think tanks website. You might actually learn something.

2/23/2007 5:09:28 PM

i'd like to hear about the science.

2/23/2007 5:10:07 PM

Then go, I'll probably be there.

2/23/2007 5:12:17 PM

yeah i'll probably show for wednesday.

2/23/2007 5:13:31 PM

i guess scuba steve would consider it a copout for me to not show up even though i work in charlotte

2/23/2007 5:20:58 PM

not really, I doubt you would come even if you lived in Raleigh

2/23/2007 5:39:33 PM

Quote :

"People like TreeTwista are like the people above. They do not study policy. They do not care about cause and effect. They do not care how they are manipulated. No degree of evidence or reason will ever convince them to think otherwise. You might as well just discount them as the mindless automatons they are, and hope they will be content driving their Mustang, drinking Budweiser and listening to the newest Toby Keith album, and that Bush will not appoint them to be the head of FEMA in the future.""

oh yeah, you were the one who submitted this brilliant piece of breakthrough science

nm

oh look heres another one of your brilliant posts...comparing someone who doesnt blindly believe humans are 100% responsible for catastrophic global warming to a holocaust denier

Quote :

"You would happen, perchance to be a holocaust denier as well?"

brilliant

[Edited on February 23, 2007 at 5:48 PM. Reason : .]

2/23/2007 5:46:52 PM

Quote :

"Elizabeth Kolbert, staff writer for The New Yorker and author of the book, Field Notes from a Catastrophe: Man, Nature, and Climate Change, will kick off the symposium with a keynote address at 7 p.m. on Monday, Feb. 26, at 7 p.m. in NC State’s Campus Cinema, located in Witherspoon Student Center. Kolbert will share her experiences in reporting and writing Field Notes from a Catastrophe. The book chronicles Kolbert’s global travels from Alaska to Iceland to the Netherlands as well as her conversations with scientists and politicians in an attempt to get at the heart of the debate over global warming. In addition to Kolbert, other leading authorities on global climate change from a variety of disciplines will share insights and address various aspects of the issue over the course of the symposium. On Tuesday, Feb. 27, Dr. Rick Kearney, director of NC State’s School of Public and International Affairs, will moderate a panel discussion that will address the social, political and economic issues related to the impact of climate change in various world regions. The panel includes Elizabeth Bast, international policy analyst for Friends of the Earth in Washington, D.C.; Dr. Andrew Jorgenson, assistant professor of sociology at Washington State University; and Dr. Chris Russill, assistant professor of rhetoric at the University of Minnesota."

What a fucking joke. Nice try CHASS. Bring in some of peudoscientists, special interest groups and alarmists pretending to be experts.

2/23/2007 5:50:35 PM

Living in the past are we? I've studied the science, I've moved on. I'm focused on policy. That's why I no longer care to discuss this topic with you.

As for "prawn star" if you are focused on science

Quote :

"On Wednesday, Feb. 28, Dr. David Archer, professor of geophysical sciences at the University of Chicago, will lead a panel along with faculty members from NC State’s Department of Marine, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences on understanding the science behind global warming. Archer will make a presentation that involves humor, understandable examples and analogies to convey key global warming concepts. NC State faculty members who are participating include: Drs. Anantha R. Aiyyer, David J. DeMaster, Daniel L. Kamykowski, Nicholas Meskhidze and Yang Zhang. The panel begins at 3 p.m in Witherspoon Cinema."

University of Chicago is the Harvard of the midwest. I'm sure Dr. Archer can answer any question you can ask, so man up and go if you're such a skeptic.

[Edited on February 23, 2007 at 5:54 PM. Reason : .]

2/23/2007 5:51:27 PM

Quote :

"I've studied the science, I've moved on. I'm focused on policy"

oh man...this is the reason you're clueless

the SCIENTISTS havent moved on from the science but you have?

everything is about policy right, because making a SCIENCE issue a POLICITICAL issue is the most accurate way to investigate it right

i wonder if you even thought twice before you posted that gem right there

"I've studied the science, I've moved on. I'm focused on policy"

just wow

BTW THESE WERE 2 OF MY PROFESSORS

Quote :

"David J. DeMaster, Daniel L. Kamykowski"

why dont you ask them about global warming...i already have

[Edited on February 23, 2007 at 5:55 PM. Reason : .]

2/23/2007 5:53:30 PM

The reason its come to the forefront is that the science points to the fact that we need to address our policies to address this concern. So it is imperative to include science as the basis for our policy decisions. We know what the problem is...now, what are we going to do about it?

2/23/2007 5:56:55 PM

Quote :

"We know what the problem is"

not really

2/23/2007 5:57:26 PM

Quote :

"My issue is not that you're questioning experts; it's that you're questioning experts without any rationale for your skepticism (except for ideology, of course) in a field you know nothing about. What did you major in again? I can't recall which major gets you such a worthless job that you're able to post constantly while at work."

Boone to TreeTwista10

Well, what about the following two scientists? And there are many more--but these climatologists are being threatened by politicians for challenging the groupthink. Does this fact not disturb any of you that are apparently so concerned about the so-called consensus?

Quote :

"'In general, if you do not agree with the consensus that we are headed toward disaster, you are treated like a pariah,' said William O'Keefe, chief executive officer of the Marshall Institute, which assesses scientific issues that shape public policy. 'It's ironic that a field based on challenging unproven theories attacks skeptics in a very unhealthy way.' Two climatologists in Democrat-leaning states, David Legates in Delaware and George Taylor in Oregon, have come under fire for expressing skepticism about the origins of climate change [emphasis added]. Oregon Gov. Theodore R. Kulongoski is publicly seeking to strip Mr. Taylor, widely known as the state's climatologist, of his position because of his stance."

2/23/2007 9:57:13 PM

Quote :

"said William O'Keefe, chief executive officer of the Marshall Institute, which assesses scientific issues that shape public policy"

The Marshall Institute, a conservative "think tank" funded by oil and coal interests.

2/23/2007 10:27:41 PM

who do you propose pays for research Scuba Steve? the taxpayers?

[Edited on February 23, 2007 at 10:28 PM. Reason : .]

2/23/2007 10:28:29 PM

Do you honestly think that oil and coal interests are looking for scientifically valid research that would support global warming? Its an investment. Creating disinformation is a strategic methodology to redefine the debate. Make people think no problem exists, or if they can't get that to work... make it seem like its not important.

Remember when tobacco said that there was no link between cancer and smoking? Or that nicotine is not addictive?

Or CFC's don't destroy the Ozone layer?

Or we don't need the Clean Air Act, because coal fired power plants don't create acid rain?




[Edited on February 23, 2007 at 10:44 PM. Reason : .]

2/23/2007 10:40:30 PM

Quote :

"who do you propose pays for research Scuba Steve? the taxpayers?"

You are right, we can't spend few dollars for environmental policy to help mitigate a global catastrophe... but lets authorize another 1/2 trillion dollars for the war! Lets remember our priorities people!

2/23/2007 10:46:37 PM

"few dollars" huh? you have any idea how much it would cost?

2/23/2007 11:00:53 PM

do you have any idea how much it would cost not to?

2/23/2007 11:03:05 PM

might cost nothing, nobody knows

2/23/2007 11:07:36 PM

costs might be very heavy, in human and economic terms

whats the worst that could happen? we move to sustainable energy?

2/23/2007 11:20:41 PM

energy crisis leading to a complete economic crash


Sustainable energy couldn't possibly fill the void. We would have to build thousands and thousands of nuclear power plants.

2/23/2007 11:33:47 PM

We'll have to do something sooner or later. A system based on fossil fuels is on borrowed time, G

2/24/2007 12:15:47 AM

The Sun is going to burn out in about 5 billion years. Let's go ahead and solve the light and heat problem now, B

2/24/2007 12:37:43 AM

i love how only conservatives are the ones who are paying money to influence the debate on global warming

2/24/2007 12:39:09 AM

Quote :

"The Sun is going to burn out in about 5 billion years. Let's go ahead and solve the light and heat problem now, B"

While we're using that rationale, let's not confront problems in health care or social security either... we're all gonna die some day, right?

2/24/2007 12:45:43 AM

I've got my own health care arrangements

2/24/2007 12:55:31 AM

good for you, 1/4 of Americans don't

2/24/2007 1:11:10 AM

^ isn't that THEIR FUCKING PROBLEM, not mine? lack of preparation on your part does not create an emergency on mine

ok, this is from page 9, but still...

Quote :

"One of the factors that people forget is that most of the ice is already in the ocean, and so if you understand Archimedes’ Principle, when that ice melts it simply replaces the space that the ice occupied"

I asked that very question in 7th or 8th grade on a class field trip and the "scientist" professor looked at me like I was an idiot and told me as such. that's my anecdote

Oh, and I'd love to know why it is that we are experiencing the "warming" now. Why hasn't it been happening since the beginning of the industrial revolution? I mean, I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but people keep talking about OMFG IT'S SO MUCH WARMER NOW THAN 1990!!! OMFG!!! And I'm like "weren't we pumping tons of shit in like the 20s and 30s?" Shouldn't we have seen the effects long before now, even if only in a limited fashion?

Oh, I work for Exxon, have a toby keith cd playing right now, say "nucular," and am drinking a Budweiser as we speak.

2/24/2007 1:30:43 AM

Nope. Fossil Fuel usage grew exponentially between 1900 and 1970 before levelling off, only to resume growing in the 1990s.

Today a large portion of our CO2 comes from industrial processes such as concrete production. Back then most of the planet was housed with brick and wood.

Quote :

"I asked that very question in 7th or 8th grade on a class field trip and the "scientist" professor looked at me like I was an idiot and told me as such."

The scientists was mistaken. A glass of water with ice floating in it will have about the same water level after the ice melts. I say "about" because while the ice will never displace more than its weight, which is fixed, the water at the bottom of the glass is not floating. As such, after the ice melts the water temperature will begin to rise, increasing the volume of all the water and thus the water level.

[Edited on February 24, 2007 at 1:41 AM. Reason : .,.]

2/24/2007 1:37:13 AM

concrete production accounted for 7% of the co2 emitted according to the 1990 ipcc report

2/24/2007 1:48:07 AM

Quote :

"isn't that THEIR FUCKING PROBLEM, not mine? lack of preparation on your part does not create an emergency on mine"

Not only are you an idiot, you're a selfish asshole too. A large number of people don't have health care coverage because the market failed, and private industry has decided the profit is to small to serve low income populations. Staying alive is not something that should be priced "as high as the market will bear". Money is a construct invented by man. You are a human first. What happened to your humanity?

2/24/2007 1:55:22 AM

^^ i remember that crap from Mr Wizard back in the day. that experience with the "scientist" has tainted my view of 'science' ever since. which I think is good. it's make me skeptical towards the new religion.

2/24/2007 1:56:06 AM

Quote :

"What happened to your humanity?"

my daddy and his tobacky farm done took mah humanity and when you combine that with all muh budweiser and dale junior posters i guess i'm plum tuckered out

2/24/2007 1:59:09 AM

what happened to your common sense? evolution, survival of the fittest, all that bullshit...

if you can't afford to live, then maybe you don't deserve to live. why should we save the weak, only to further pollute our genes?

honestly, though, yes, I really think that if you can't afford health care, then it is your own fault. It's not the "market's fault." It's not the fault of evil greedy people. It's your own damned fault for not working hard or setting your priorities correctly. In short, it's not MY fault that YOU fucked up.

If I am smart and save my money for a rainy day, while you go out and splurge every penny on weed and drums, should I really have to pay for your sorry ass when hard times hit the nation? Nope. I'll look at your decaying corpse in the streets as convenient fertilizer and as a wonderful step in the direction of reducing humanity's "carbon footprint."

btw, maybe if your buddy edwards hadn't sued every doctor he could find, then we might have more respectable health care costs. hey, if you can throw around stupid generalizations, then so can i

2/24/2007 2:05:20 AM

wow

you are an evil human being

and I mean that in all seriousness

2/24/2007 2:10:53 AM

i know. how dare I actually suggest the methodology championed by science as the secret to our success. or how dare I actually suggest that someone be responsible for their own fucking actions. crazy, aint it?

2/24/2007 2:13:53 AM

I'm not going to respond to you anymore

you are a psychopath

2/24/2007 2:15:08 AM

hey, it's ok. when you can't actually make an argument, make an attack instead.

2/24/2007 2:18:33 AM

No, I could argue. But as you obviously value money over human life, you have evidently shaped your life to be nothing but a meaningless chase for material goods and not substance or happiness. I don't think you realize how ignorant you sound.

2/24/2007 2:30:36 AM

^ Scuba Steve, do you deny that the abovementioned climatologists in Delaware and Oregon have been attacked for daring to express skepticism about the so-called consensus? Yes or no?

2/24/2007 2:46:19 AM

Quote :

"as you obviously value money over human life"

I guess that must mean you obviously value money over human rights based on your stance on the Iraq war

2/24/2007 3:48:39 AM

scuba steve

wow

you are a pathetic faggot

and I mean that in all seriousness




Grow the fuck up. Life is what people make of it. Stop acting like a little bitch.

2/24/2007 5:18:05 AM

remind me again how paying for life-sucking maggots and such will allow me to derive happiness. I'd be so much happier without these wastes of life existing around me.

i mean, hey, if you enjoy helping out worthless people, then knock yourself out.

2/24/2007 8:29:02 PM

2/24/2007 9:16:05 PM

Quote :

"remind me again how paying for life-sucking maggots and such will allow me to derive happiness"

Corporations? Because if you are insisting that social welfare programs are a heavy burden upon our citizen's backs, perhaps you should do the math. Corporate welfare in the form of tax incentives and direct payments to corporations amount to several times what we spend on social welfare programs. Didn't NC just give $400 million incentives to Google to come to Lenoir? Doesn't sound like the free market to me.

If you look at the Great Depression, 1/3 of Americans were out of work. Its not because they didn't want to work...it's that the market failed and there weren't any jobs to be had.

As for the "life sucking maggots" comment, you show your bias... your thinly veiled racist overtones are easy to detect. I bet you are middle class, white, Republican and haven't gone hungry a day in your life.


[Edited on February 24, 2007 at 9:27 PM. Reason : .]

2/24/2007 9:25:41 PM

wow. race card. diverting the issue to corporations. good work at being a classic liberal scumbag

2/24/2007 9:41:09 PM