« Oregon wildlife agency kills 10% of endangered wolves | Main | What I like most about my 2011 Mini Cooper S »

June 09, 2011

Comments

Amen.

I agree , it is really scarey. Even the crazy weather with all the floods and draughts around the world doesn't convince them. Guess they wear blinders when they read the paper.

All the Deniers have to do is notice the change in weather patterns...it ain't Rokkitt Sciense !

Excellently said!

Why are you driving a car? Why did you buy a new Mini Cooper and before that a scooter? There is such hypocrisy in whining about global warming and still contributing to it by consuming products whose production produces greenhouse emissions, and also operating products which produce greenhouse emissions.

You seem to think that republicans are responsible for the lions share of illogical thinking and political problems.

Here are some reasons people vote domocrat which seem plain crazy to me. They might say...

" I voted Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene, but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn't."

"I voted Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would."

" I voted Democrat because Freedom of Speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it."

"I voted Democrat because I'm way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves."

"I voted Democrat because I believe that people who can't tell us if it will rain on Friday can tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I don't start driving a Prius."

"I voted Democrat because I'm not concerned about millions of babies being aborted so long as we keep all death row inmates alive."

" I voted Democrat because I think illegal aliens have a right to free health care, education, and Social Security benefits."

" I voted Democrat because I believe that business should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as the Democrats see fit.."

"I voted Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters."

"I voted Democrat because I think that it's better to pay billions to people who hate us for their oil, but not drill our own from sources readily available."

"I voted Democrat because while we live in the greatest, most wonderful country in the world, I was promised "HOPE AND CHANGE"

" I voted Democrat because my head is so firmly planted up my ass, it's unlikely that I'll ever have another point of view"


Ron, I note that you didn't disagree with my main point in this post. Republicans are denying the reality of global warming. And you also agree that Republicans aren't the only reality deniers, as I also said in my post.

So I guess we agree!

OK. We agree there. Obviously there is climate change going on. Anyone who denies that is in denial.

However, I think what deniers deny is not so much that climate change is happening, but that the scientists know why it's happening.

Even if there is a concensus among experts that greenhouse emissions are causing this, it does not mean they are correct.

It was the consensus at one time that the world was flat.

So, to some, it is difficult to support legislation that hampers business based on a hypothesis.

Nevertheless, it makes sense to clean up our act. This planet is all we got.

Clean up our act how? Merely by trying to communicate with another human being except face-to-face is to be complicit in the "human-caused" portion of global warming.

Do you actually believe that Asian Indians and Chinese will declare a moratorium on developing the infrastructure necessary to sustain billions of people? Or that the United States will relinquish rights to hydrocarbon emissions to allow them to do it?

Good luck with that.

Santorum is correct when he says CO2 is an atmospheric trace gas and that the man-made part of that trace gas is itself a trace gas. Atmospheric CO2 concentration 100 years ago was roughly 3 parts per 10,000. Today it is roughly 4 parts per 10,000.

Those who proclaim “consensus” want you to believe an increase of one part CO2 in 10,000 will cause catastrophic climate change. Let’s do the same math using everyday examples the “experts” can’t sneak past your bullshit detector.

To believe climate is that sensitive to atmospheric CO2 change is equivalent to believing:
- You’ll blow your 1,000 calorie a day diet by consuming an additional 0.1 calories a day.
- A ladder rated for a 250 lb. person will collapse if that person weighs 250.025 lbs.
- You’ll ruin a perfect night’s rest of 8 hours (28,800 seconds) and be exhausted all day if you sleep 3 seconds less than that.

Anyone who doesn’t believe the examples above (and I sure as hell hope you don’t) but still believes the man-made CO2 global warming lie has no business exhaling without sequestering that breath of CO2 in an underground salt mine.

DJ, none of your statements are factual. Do you really believe that you, Santorum, and other global warming deniers know more about the Earth's climate that 97% of the world's leading climatologists.

I don't think so.

Before you post any more untrue comments on my blog, you should head over to Skeptical Science and familiarize yourself with the 165 arguments most often used by deniers like yourself.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Factual scientific responses are given to each one, so you really need to come up with some fresh ridiculousness. It's too easy for me to scan your comment above and come up with scientifically valid answers to your non-factual assertions.

Have a read and educate yourself about what's really happening to our world's climate. Hint: it's different from what Fox News and Rick Santorum are saying.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-levels-airborne-fraction-increasing.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-is-not-the-only-driver-of-climate.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Industrial-Revolution-global-warming.htm

After all is said and done, the initial step deemed necessary to (possibly) mitigate drastic climate change is to stop putting so much carbon into the atmosphere. Sequestration of carbon emissions to the extent necessary does not appear to be economically viable. That leaves cessation of emissions as the only alternative.

Currently, upwards of six billion plus of us two-legged organisms are going about the business of survival. In a sense, we are all hapless victims of Life itself, which modifies it's agenda of survival via methods which have so far escaped detection by even the most brilliant and astute among us.

We can plainly see what is happening to the environment. It is changing rapidly. Our ability to adapt as a species is an open question. If Life itself is to survive, it may have to do so in a form other than human. I make this utterance with extreme anthropomorphic bias, presuming that homo sapiens is the evolutionary prime mover. (Your average rhinoceros is free of such concerns)

What to do...what to do...oh my. Life itself will be making decisions with respect to modifications of the atmosphere - not Democrats or Republicans.

Brian - I think that the vast majority of people who strongly believe that global warming exists and is a serious, man-made problem don't believe so due to their superior rationality, but because it appeals to them.

Many of these people already hated several aspects of society said to contribute to global warming, including big corporations, industrialization, meat eating. Tell them that these things are causing global warming, and they think, "yea...that sounds about right!"

Contrary to what Wayne White said above, global warming is not obvious to me from the weather I see around me. Honestly, if I'd never heard of it, I never would've guesses something was wrong.

I'm not a global warming denier. Actually, I accepted it pretty readily at first, back when I was more trusting - I guess I thought, "why would they make it up?" But now that I've seen how easy it is for arguments, even scientific ones, to mislead, or be wrong for subtle reasons, I'm not nearly as sure.

I'll probably look a little more into the science because of this post, but the main point I wanted to make was that I don't believe that even if they are right about this issue, I don't think it has anything to do with being "truth deniers" or "affirmers" - most democrats have no rigorous scientific understanding of global warming, and most republicans are just not interested because the implications (use less energy, de-industrialize, eat less meat) don't appeal to them

Brian, has it ever occurred to you that CO2 is the only hypothetical cause for global warming that can be taxed? No other hypothesis can be turned into a global taxation scheme. How convenient that the “experts” say it’s the key temperature driver, don’t you think?

But I get by now that there’s just no appealing to your common sense. The problem with the “leave it to the experts” mentality is that it discourages thinking for yourself.

CO2 is an inert gas…unlike SO2 for instance, it doesn’t react with other components in the atmosphere. What other inert substance do you know of that will significantly change the properties of an entire complex system by adding 1 part in 10,000?

As for my statements being factual… atmospheric CO2 change of roughly 1 part per 10,000 since pre-industrial times isn’t my number – it’s the UN IPCC’s.

And speaking of the UN, your source skepticalscience.com credits just one man for writing the 165 argument responses you rely on so heavily. His name is Dr. Jan Dash – he’s a PhD physicist – but his current credentials reveal where his true interests lie. Dash is a climate lobbyist at the United Nations Office of a global nonprofit/NGO – an organization that seeks to benefit by being on the receiving end of climate change legislation’s “spread the wealth” effect. Funny how all AGW roads seem to lead back to the UN. That’s not scientific consensus, it’s scientific incest. Just follow the money.

http://www.trunity.net/CoNGOSD/topics/view/59680/

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Strange Up Salem

Welcome to HinesSight

  • Salem Political Snark
    My local political rants are now made on this badass blog. Check it out. Dirty politics, outrageous actions, sleaze, backroom deals — we’re on it. 

  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • Church of the Churchless
    Visit my other weblog, Church of the Churchless, where the gospel of spiritual independence is preached.

  • Welcome to HinesSight. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.