honestly 80 degree december days are a reason global warming is a good thing

think of how many people are not running the heat today

12/10/2007 3:45:59 PM

But I am sure that was offset by all of the fatasses who turned on their A/C.

12/10/2007 3:56:51 PM

today is more of an effect from La Nina not global warming



As you can see more of the country today is "below normal" temperature wise. With icestorms assaulting much of the midwest and central plains.



Ice storm warnings are in effect for Northern Texas and Oklahoma which is at the same latitude if not further south then Raleigh.



La Nina regional correlation

[Edited on December 10, 2007 at 4:07 PM. Reason : a]

12/10/2007 4:02:59 PM

Quote :

"I'm not asking you about CO2, I'm asking you why you believe its not important to reduce pollution now. All pollution."

Stop with the fucking STRAWMAN already. The fact is, NO ONE is coming out and saying "let's cut pollution" and letting it be at that. If they did, pretty much no one would disagree with it on the surface. What people ARE saying, and this is, btw, how you started out, is that we should cut one particular pollutant in order to stave off global destruction. AND, their "solutions" to staving off global destruction prove economically disastrous for pretty much any developed nation, while giving a free pass to non-developed nations who pollute as much or more than developed nations. Pile onto this the fact that there is no hard evidence to back up the claims of the impending apocalypse, and any reasonable person is right to say "hold on a minute... why should we fuck ourselves over again?"

That is why it's a strawman. You are putting words into people's mouths, trying to make it sound like they are saying "hey, let's pollute all we want!" when in fact they are actually saying "why should we fuck ourselves over economically on the basis of politics and bad science?"

Now, hooksaw might be bringing up other shit, and maybe that's cause he's not the sharpest tool in the shed, but it doesn't change the fact that you INTRODUCED a fucking STRAWMAN. As such, your question deserves no answer because it is not based on the actual argument at hand.

In short, SHUT THE FUCK UP WITH YOUR DUMBASS QUESTION ABOUT WHY PEOPLE WANT TO POLLUTE. Thank you.

12/10/2007 7:23:03 PM

^thank God for you, save others the trouble.

12/10/2007 9:54:19 PM

This whole "environment" thing was around much earlier than either the united states or our economic system. If we are saying the whole reason why we should not address problems is because it is too expensive, then the market is obviously not the mechanism we need to address it.

12/10/2007 10:00:42 PM

Pat Hansbury likes global warming. He wants to be enjoying 75* weather in NYC like Raleigh is right now

12/10/2007 10:11:04 PM

Quote :

"Now, hooksaw might be bringing up other shit, and maybe that's cause he's not the sharpest tool in the shed, but it doesn't change the fact that you INTRODUCED a fucking STRAWMAN."

aaronburro

Concerning me, how would you know my intelligence level? Answer: You don't.

I suggest that you stick to the topic and omit the cliché:

Quote :

". . .cause [sic] he's not the sharpest tool in the shed. . . ."

And omit quotations such as the following paragon of critical thinking:

Quote :

"In short, SHUT THE FUCK UP WITH YOUR DUMBASS QUESTION ABOUT WHY PEOPLE WANT TO POLLUTE. Thank you."

But, yes, a " STRAWMAN" argument has been presented--you've pinpointed the problem, Detective Horse.

12/11/2007 12:11:10 AM

Quote :

"honestly 80 degree december days are a reason global warming is a good thing"

So you'll be equally as happy when it's 110 in July?

Not arguing for one side or the other, just pointing out some idiocy.

12/11/2007 12:25:03 AM

Quote :

"today is more of an effect from La Nina not global warming"

Quote :

"today is more of an effect from La Nina not global warming"

Quote :

"As you can see more of the country today is "below normal" temperature wise. With icestorms assaulting much of the midwest and central plains."

Quote :

"As you can see more of the country today is "below normal" temperature wise. With icestorms assaulting much of the midwest and central plains."

today's high was 78. 20+ degrees above avg. Global Warming has not caused a +20 degree increase in temperatures. At most it is a mileage issue. Very possible even given La Nina optimal conditions the extra energy stored in the tropics (from built up CO2) could have pushed the subtropical high pressure cell 100 miles further north which serves as a tipping point when thermal temperatures are involved. This is still very speculative; but it is possible w/o global warming this cell would have not penetrated so far north and maybe stalled around the Savannah, Ga area.

[Edited on December 11, 2007 at 12:33 AM. Reason : k]

12/11/2007 12:29:08 AM

Quote :

""As you can see more of the country today is "below normal" temperature wise. With icestorms assaulting much of the midwest and central plains.""

You idiot, it gets cold in December and there are variations from week to week. This is not lack of evidence of global warming affecting weather patterns. A 6 month drought is. A year drought will be even more.

12/11/2007 12:33:07 AM

read my amendment shit tard. temperatures across a hemisphere do not vary linearly with latitude. If the jet stream moves and a arctic system moves through a drastic contrast can be seen. Likewise if warm air is able to invade further north due to natural cycles or global warming a much higher temperature is going to be measured.

If you study climate records you will actually find that Antarctica has actually been COLDER then average. This does not refute global warming necessarily because if you analyze the outer fringes of the continent near the polar front you will find that the big antarctic peninsula that about touches S. America has been WARMER then average. The reason being b.c the polar front has been receding further south then normal. Still yet to be determined if this is global warming.

[Edited on December 11, 2007 at 12:38 AM. Reason : l]

12/11/2007 12:34:00 AM

To be completely honest, no one ever really answered the question. If you care about pollution as much as you say you do, why do you put forth no effort to curb it? I understand that it can impact us negatively economically, but there is a price to pay if we do nothing. Just look at China and all the environmental problems they're having. Those are going to be costly. Wouldn't it be beneficial to do something about it now instead of later?

You whip out your strawman argument like a golden shield that protects you from actually answering why you think it wouldn't be beneficial to do a little bit more for the environment. It's just frustrating from the people who really do care about the environment. Don't say one thing and not let your actions back you up.

12/11/2007 12:38:39 AM

I really don't care

12/11/2007 12:39:16 AM

Quote :

"A 6 month drought is. A year drought will be even more"

sorry this is not a symptom of global warming necessarily. Warmer temperatures does not = no rain. Heat causes water to evaporate. water evaporating eventually precipitates out as rain. Thus we should get more monsoon rain like Florida in the summer. The drought this year is due to the Bermuda subtropical ridge stalling out over the region during August; problems were further agitated by the VERY hot air that results from adiabatic heating from the descending tropical air of the high. Global warming would actually help this by pushing the ridge further north allowing the monsoon trough to bring us rain.

[Edited on December 11, 2007 at 12:44 AM. Reason : l]

12/11/2007 12:42:50 AM

Well at least you're honest. People like aaronburro though who claim they're for the environment and yet do nothing to protect it piss me off and frankly, those contradictory actions destroy anything he might try to argue in my eyes.

^ Deserts tend to be pretty hot and dry...

[Edited on December 11, 2007 at 12:46 AM. Reason : ]

12/11/2007 12:45:21 AM

they occur b.c of geographic features in combination with weather patterns. Raleigh is located smack on the eastern sea board; with tropical gulf of mexico moisture not too far to the south. NC will never be a dessert unless the Gulf dries up

12/11/2007 12:52:50 AM

I was merely pointing out that there is often a strong correlation between hotness and dryness with regard to climate.

12/11/2007 1:03:30 AM

OH!!!!!!

Kinda like India where temperatures avg over 90 much the year and they get a shit load of rain every year or Fairbanks AK which is freezing cold most the year and gets <1 inch of precipitation per month.

You are very wrong. Not much correlation exists between temperature and dryness. There is a correlation between evaporation potential and the avaliable amount of moisture in the air. This is a complex equation though. The even more interesting part is that the deserts are HOTTER b.c of the dryness ; NOT dryier b.c of the heat.

12/11/2007 1:14:04 AM

Dude, you're being super annoying tonight. For every place you point out I can find a desert. I know that geographical features play an important part in the formation of climate and whatnot, but places can go from being habitable regions to deserts. A lot more of Africa used to be forest but centuries of over-grazing and burning the forests down has fucked their shit up.

Seriously though, stop being a douche. You're better than that.

12/11/2007 1:27:04 AM

desertification on fringe arid areas often geographically close to existing deserts is different then stating Global Warming is going to turn NC into a desert. You obviously have a simple understanding of climatology if you think this.

12/11/2007 1:33:23 AM

I'm sorry, but did I ever say that NC was going to become a desert?

12/11/2007 1:39:45 AM

Quote :

"This whole "environment" thing was around much earlier than either the united states or our economic system. If we are saying the whole reason why we should not address problems is because it is too expensive, then the market is obviously not the mechanism we need to address it."

Another Strawman. I am saying we shouldn't wreck our economy over ALARMISM.

Quote :

"To be completely honest, no one ever really answered the question. If you care about pollution as much as you say you do, why do you put forth no effort to curb it?"

How many times do I have to say this? It's a strawman. IT DESERVES NO ANSWER BECAUSE NO ONE IS PROPOSING THAT!

Quote :

"I understand that it can impact us negatively economically, but there is a price to pay if we do nothing."

And what price is this? Melting of the polar ice caps? A hole in the ozone layer due to air conditioners in a spot on the earth where there are no air conditioners?

Quote :

"You whip out your strawman argument like a golden shield that protects you from actually answering why you think it wouldn't be beneficial to do a little bit more for the environment."

No, I whip out the strawman because it points out that you are putting words in my mouth. Moreover, you haven't proved that we, as Americans, NEED to do anything more for the environment. If you could do that, then maybe, just maybe, you would have a valid point. Until then, it's not worth addressing.

Quote :

"People like aaronburro though who claim they're for the environment and yet do nothing to protect it piss me off and frankly, those contradictory actions destroy anything he might try to argue in my eyes."

Thanks for another strawman. Especially since I've never said I'm "for the environment." Never claimed to be an environmentalist, and I've never claimed to be against it. But hey, keep putting words in my mouth and getting frustrated when I don't respond like I actually said them.

Quote :

"Dude, you're being super annoying tonight."

No. He's just being RIGHT.

12/11/2007 6:58:36 AM

The plane takes off...

12/11/2007 8:38:29 AM

Quote :

"The plane takes off back to reality. "

I think global warming is real to a point, however, i think its effects and current impact are grossly overrated by Al Gore and the rest of the hippy community.

Super Serial guys

[Edited on December 11, 2007 at 10:13 AM. Reason : a]

12/11/2007 10:13:09 AM

Quote :

"top with the fucking STRAWMAN already. The fact is, NO ONE is coming out and saying "let's cut pollution" and letting it be at that. If they did, pretty much no one would disagree with it on the surface. What people ARE saying, and this is, btw, how you started out, is that we should cut one particular pollutant in order to stave off global destruction. AND, their "solutions" to staving off global destruction prove economically disastrous for pretty much any developed nation, while giving a free pass to non-developed nations who pollute as much or more than developed nations. Pile onto this the fact that there is no hard evidence to back up the claims of the impending apocalypse, and any reasonable person is right to say "hold on a minute... why should we fuck ourselves over again?" That is why it's a strawman. You are putting words into people's mouths, trying to make it sound like they are saying "hey, let's pollute all we want!" when in fact they are actually saying "why should we fuck ourselves over economically on the basis of politics and bad science?" Now, hooksaw might be bringing up other shit, and maybe that's cause he's not the sharpest tool in the shed, but it doesn't change the fact that you INTRODUCED a fucking STRAWMAN. As such, your question deserves no answer because it is not based on the actual argument at hand. In short, SHUT THE FUCK UP WITH YOUR DUMBASS QUESTION ABOUT WHY PEOPLE WANT TO POLLUTE. Thank you. "

I've been asking the same question, four times, that could very well have been answered with one post saying something along the lines of:

"I believe pollution is badfor the environment."

or

"I don't believe pollution has any provable longterm effects"

This then could lead to an intelligent discussion, a real debate, about global warming that wouldn't involve anecdotal references to fickle North Carolina weather and year end Hurricane totals because we'd actually have a common reference to build arguments on.

Its also the kind of answer neither of you will give, because that kind of revelation completely undermines every other stupid statement you've both made in this entire thread. Why? Your entire premise against global warming is built around a claimed resistance to 'fearmongering' - ironic, in that both of you loudly beat the war drum for Iraq and Iran repeating whatever the chique hawk line of the day is- and not actual factual claim. Of course, you'll probably argue till your fingers gangrene about what factual evidence is using the vast pool of internet anecdotes available to you, but that's beside my point.

And I'm quoting your entire froth mouthed rant as an example to the only way you both know how to argue anything. That is, repeating what you understand and ignoring what you don't and taking as a personal insult any statement that disagrees with your pathetic assertions. I'm going to hammer both of you on basic points, because neither of you have the ability to give direct responses. Not because you can't, but because one of the very few things that either of you understand is that you lack an ability to make a reasoned argument, even though you won't ever admit this, and giving a direct response strips of your only debate ability:obfuscate the argument by making broad assertions, but never a specific claim.

It's easy to argue against global warming if you never actually agree that pollution is harmful to the environment. Just as its easy to argue for the Iraq war by only stating something like "terrorists trying to kill innocent people is evil."

While the unfortunately growing number of mongoloids who like to play debate hero on this website won't understand, the very few intellectual minds here see your consistent avoidance of direct responses for what it really is: a shoddy mask for your ignorance.

12/11/2007 12:05:37 PM

Quote :

"play debate hero"

LMAO


^ I do not think many people here believe that global warming is not possible. The issue is how much of climate "change" the human factor plays. I do not deny that our CO2 output effects climate. Though I think hell, brimstone, and doomsday that many hippies and Al Gore preach about is exaggerated; equivalent to the neo-con terrorism and Iran agenda vomit. The liberals have global warming fear-mongering turning Raleigh into a beach city and polar ice caps melting while the neo-cons have terrorist fear-mongering about needing to tap your phones in order to protect everyone from the terrorist hidden behind every corner.

[Edited on December 11, 2007 at 1:10 PM. Reason : a]

12/11/2007 1:08:46 PM

aaronburro and others like myself HAVE stated what kinds of realistic (and not hurtful to the economy) changes we should make to curb pollution NUMEROUS times throughout this thread. So don't say we don't care and offer so solution. Blame yourself for not reading the whole thread.

12/11/2007 1:42:33 PM

Well if you're going to continue posting in this thread anyway, why would you not repeat them?

12/11/2007 7:51:57 PM

Quote :

"Hooksaw, You just retyped your first reply. I'm not asking you about CO2, I'm asking you why you believe its not important to reduce pollution now. All pollution. I've stated this three times now. Answer this question directly and stop talking about CO2."

SandSanta

Al Gore and the IPCC first.

[Edited on December 12, 2007 at 1:47 AM. Reason : .]

12/12/2007 1:45:01 AM

Quote :

"'ve been asking the same question, four times, that could very well have been answered with one post saying something along the lines of:"

OK, then. Tell me this: Given that you are homosexual, when are you going to tell your parents that you are gay. don't bother telling me that you're not a homosexual. Just tell me when you are going to let your folks know about being a fudge packer. I don't want to hear one word about how you might not actually be gay. And every time you try to protest your heterosexuality, I'm going to tell you to stop evading the question. After all, why wouldn't you want to answer the question? it's just a question, after all. When are you going to tell your parents that you like having a hard cock shoved up your ass?

I just used a really extreme example to prove my point here, so I really don't give a damn about your sexuality one way or the other. But, see what I am getting at? You can ask the question hundreds of times, but the fact is that it is still based on you putting words in other people's mouths. As such, the question DOES NOT DESERVE AN ANSWER. That's why it's called a "logical fallacy."

Quote :

"Its also the kind of answer neither of you will give, because that kind of revelation completely undermines every other stupid statement you've both made in this entire thread."

Actually, I won't answer it because you have posed the question to back me into a corner over words I never spoke. Seems pretty fucking simple to me. When are you going to tell your parents that you are gay?

Quote :

"Why? Your entire premise against global warming is built around a claimed resistance to 'fearmongering'"

yet another strawman. I'm not arguing "against global warming" based on my hatred of fearmongering. I'm outright saying that GW is fearmongering.

Quote :

"ironic, in that both of you loudly beat the war drum for Iraq and Iran repeating whatever the chique hawk line of the day is- and not actual factual claim."

Thanks for yet another strawman. I was against Iraq from the beginning, though I have been a strong advocate for not hanging our troops out to dry. I'm also 100% opposed to messing with Iran.

Quote :

"And I'm quoting your entire froth mouthed rant as an example to the only way you both know how to argue anything."

Tell me. What's wrong with pointing out that you are putting words in other people's mouths. What is wrong with asking you to be intellectually honest?

Quote :

"That is, repeating what you understand and ignoring what you don't and taking as a personal insult any statement that disagrees with your pathetic assertions."

Even if I did do that, I'd say that is better than just straight up lying about your opponent's position and then berating him for not responding to your lies.

Quote :

"I'm going to hammer both of you on basic points"

Basic points on things we didn't say: check.

Quote :

"It's easy to argue against global warming if you never actually agree that pollution is harmful to the environment."

Maybe. But no one here is doing that. It's actually much easier to argue against global warming based on the actual lack of evidence for it and the fact that other, more plausible reasons for a perceived increase in temperatures are being flat out ignored.

Quote :

"While the unfortunately growing number of mongoloids who like to play debate hero on this website won't understand, the very few intellectual minds here see your consistent avoidance of direct responses for what it really is: a shoddy mask for your ignorance."

I wonder how they see your attempts to put words into other people's mouths...

Quote :

"Well if you're going to continue posting in this thread anyway, why would you not repeat [ways to lower pollution]?"

Because it's fairly irrelevant as to the topic of conversation recently, namely "why do you think pollution is OK?"

12/12/2007 6:09:49 PM

Quote :

"Well if you're going to continue posting in this thread anyway, why would you not repeat [ways to lower pollution]?"

Did you seriously just make an entire post about not putting words in people's mouths and do that?

12/12/2007 6:16:19 PM

please explain to me how I put words in your mouth. I used a common practice of putting a pronoun into context. Leaving "them" in the sentence is pointless and leads to confusion. Now, if you'd like to say that "them" wasn't referring to "ways to reduce pollution," then feel free to do so, but I think you'll be hard pressed to do so, given that you were clearly referring to the post before yours, and in that post sole topic was why someone wasn't rehashing previously mentioned ways to lower pollution.

12/12/2007 6:30:52 PM

But that's not what I said.

12/12/2007 6:36:11 PM

and that's why I put the []'s in there, to denote that those were not your literal words. I willingly admit that those were not your literal words. Do you disagree with my interpretation of your words? If not, then I am not guilty of a strawman.

If you want to be a dick and fuss that those "weren't your words," then fine. What did you mean by "them" in that sentence? And, once you reply with "ways to lower pollution," then I'll respond in the exact same way that I did before. Really, what have you accomplished by being a dick? You still haven't addressed my perfectly valid response, so...

12/12/2007 6:41:59 PM

If it was irrelevant to what was being discussed then why did TKE-Teg mention it?

12/12/2007 6:46:48 PM

TKE-Teg mentioning it could be construed as being "irrelevant" to the topic at the time, but why does matter? seriously, do you anything to add to the conversation or are you just going to keep being a bad semantics ninja?

FWIW, I could easily argue that TKE's post was relevant because he was saying why he wasn't responding to the previous question as well as giving some backing to the ongoing topic of conversation which said that SandSanta's questions were not valid questions to be asking.

12/12/2007 6:55:45 PM

Quote :

"TKE-Teg mentioning it could be construed as being "irrelevant" to the topic at the time, but why does matter? seriously, do you anything to add to the conversation or are you just going to keep being a bad semantics ninja?"

I'm not the one who said it was irrelevant.

Quote :

"Because it's fairly irrelevant as to the topic of conversation recently, namely "why do you think pollution is OK?""

I'm no strawman.

12/12/2007 6:59:13 PM

Quote :

"IMStoned420: I'm not the one who said it was irrelevant."

Oh really? Look at your previous post:

Quote :

"IMStoned420: If it was irrelevant to what was being discussed then why did TKE-Teg mention it?"

Care to clarify the meaning of the word "was"?

12/12/2007 7:02:19 PM

You said it was irrelevant 5 posts before that.

12/12/2007 7:06:42 PM

oh dear

12/12/2007 8:34:45 PM

^^ False, fool. I said that repeating the previous statements would be irrelevant. Stating that there were previous comments on the issue is not irrelevant as I have already shown. Now, do you have anything to add, or can we just assume that you are trolling and have you suspended?

12/12/2007 9:51:42 PM

Pollution is romantic, just think of the extra colorful sunsets. That is just one of the many reasons I am pro-pollution. Also I don't like breathing clean air, I actually want to cough up nasty junk all the time. Oh, clean water, its overated. Most of all my goal in life is to make oil companies even richer. Additionally, I am for nuclear power because I want to see radioactive waste scattered about the countryside.

That's right, because I think that we should not just take at face value the preposterous and life-altering, famine-inducing, demands of envirowackos that must mean I am actually for pollution and a bad quality of life.

OR, maybe I just think a certain amount of pollution is a necessary aspect of living a modern life. Moreover, humanity living w/o these modern conveniences is no less likely to pollute. In fact, it is arguable that for a given population the technologically advanced society does less environmental damage, especially in terms of things like deforestation and water quality. Now, it is true we produce CO2, but what remains to be seen is if CO2 is truly a pollutant. I think it is a little bit of a stretch, a pollutant should be those things which are directly harmful and do damage locally. Calling CO2 a pollutant just confuses the issue of global warming with other less controversial debates. For example, I don't think businesses should be allowed to just dump chemicals into the ground water. I don't think we should allow lawn pesticides either, these cause large damage to the water quality for what? On the other hand, I have less problems with farmers using pesticides because it serves a purpose. So to summarize, there are pros and cons. Business and economic concerns matter, you cannot just ignore them and try to make everything as clean as possible. Especially when other countries do not do the same and we are in a global market.

12/13/2007 10:39:16 PM

Global warming protest frosted with snow

Quote :

"It snowed, but they still came. A heavy snowfall blanketed a global warming protest outside the State House in Annapolis this morning, but it did not dampen the shouts of about 400 activists who urged lawmakers to pass the nation's toughest greenhouse gas control law."

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bay_environment/blog/2008/01/global_warming_protest_snowed.html

You gotta love it.

1/18/2008 4:15:44 PM

dude. stop being a troll. freak weather conditions only apply to global warming when it's hot.

1/18/2008 4:17:43 PM

^

1/18/2008 4:56:40 PM

haha

1/18/2008 5:14:25 PM

did you forget about the exceptional drought that most of the Southeast is in, dipshit?

1/18/2008 6:16:57 PM

While the earth is warming it is not allowed to snow.....ever....not at all.

1/18/2008 6:47:25 PM

Quote :

"did you forget about the exceptional drought that most of the Southeast is in, dipshit?"

the media is cheating

its a new year

there is no 2008 drought

1/18/2008 7:21:27 PM