Brandon9000 wrote:Bi-Polar Bear wrote:If you understand that I was refering figuratively to his poor environmental record then what's all this other crap you're saying? Either you get it or you don't.
Really, you're the one who doesn't appear to get it. I could post the statement that John Kerry was only present for 5% of the senate sessions during his career, and paid look-alikes to sit in his seat, in order to make a figurative accusation that he didn't accomplish much in the senate. But it would be a cheap, unfair statement, because (a) fudamentally it's saying that someone did something that he didn't do , and (b) I have failed to provide any evidence to support my actual underlying accusation. It's just too easy and too unfair. Oh, by the way, this is the Science board.
Excuse me Princess Snot. :wink:
I have no training in climatology whatsoever, so take these comments with a grain of salt:
There's no doubt that the Earth has had wild climate changes over the past tens of millions of years, and that mankind has had nothing to do with them. I think its reasonable to assume the Earth will continue to have wild climate changes in the future that are non related to human activity.
We have accurate measurements of climate only going back about one hundred years. We can go back much futher by tree rings, ice core samples etc., but these values are less accurate.
I have no doubt that the hundreds of thousands of tons of CO2 we're discharging into the atmosphere is having some effect on global climate. What I do not know is how this human-related effect compares in magnitude to the natural climate changes. I also doubt very much that anyone knows the answer to this.
Should we take reasonable, prudent, cost-effective steps to reduce CO2 emmissions? Certainly. But I am hesitant to agree that we need to go out and spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year now on this.
I read recently that those 'scientists' warming of severe repercussions of global warming if we humans don't clean up our act fast use computer models to project the global outcomes. But the same scientists can't plug the weather data we had 50 years ago into those same models and get them to come up with the weather we have today.
Wasn't it just 20 or 30 years ago that the nations of the world were getting together to see what we could do about the terrible threat of global cooling?
While I am all for protecting the air and water and beautiful places and endangered species, etc., I think maybe we should consider what Professor Singer (and others like him) says and not waste resources on non-existing dangers.
There are more things man can do to protect our environment that is virually without much cost. We can start with oil tankers that can pollute the oceans when they have accidents that spill millions of barrels into the sea that kills wildlife. We can control forest wildfires by providing fire breaks, and outlawing camping and smoking in forests. This would be a good start.
CI - I agree there are a lot of things we can do to protect the environment at a low cost, and we should be doing these things. However, I enjoy camping in the forest, and do not want to see this outlawed.
Jim, I also enjoyed camping in my younger days, and have many good memories of my boy scout days, and when I took my family up north to camp sites. However, we also know that people are the cause of many forest fires that destroys our forests and endangers the lives of firefighters and homeowners. I'm not sure where the balance lies, but it seems total restrictions such as we have in no smoking rules has merit.
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:Bi-Polar Bear wrote:If you understand that I was refering figuratively to his poor environmental record then what's all this other crap you're saying? Either you get it or you don't.
Really, you're the one who doesn't appear to get it. I could post the statement that John Kerry was only present for 5% of the senate sessions during his career, and paid look-alikes to sit in his seat, in order to make a figurative accusation that he didn't accomplish much in the senate. But it would be a cheap, unfair statement, because (a) fudamentally it's saying that someone did something that he didn't do , and (b) I have failed to provide any evidence to support my actual underlying accusation. It's just too easy and too unfair. Oh, by the way, this is the Science board.
Excuse me Princess Snot. :wink:
If you're going to reduce the level of your response to simple name calling, at least get my gender right.
Since you chose to fire on me from behind the locked screen door, and because I find that decidely un-masculine, I didn't know which other way to go, no offense meant to the women on this site.
Why don't we just have a non sexual hug and make up? While we're hugging we can slap each other on the back real hard so we're still manly.
We bears are famous for our great hugs.
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:Since you chose to fire on me from behind the locked screen door, and because I find that decidely un-masculine.....
How is debating firing from behind a locked door?
I extend the salmon of peace and his is what I get......
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:I extend the salmon of peace and his is what I get......
Well, the next time you want to make peace with someone, you might consider not starting out your peace overtures by telling him his behavior is unmasculine. You may find that that works a bit better. And I also seem to recall calling me a clown in a previous post, in which I had not in any way gotten personal with you. Furthermore, your accusation that I am debating your from behind a closed door, in a situation in which I have debated fairly and in the open, is outrageous.
Brandon9000 wrote:Bi-Polar Bear wrote:I extend the salmon of peace and his is what I get......
Well, the next time you want to make peace with someone, you might consider not starting out your peace overtures by telling him his behavior is unmasculine. You may find that that works a bit better. And I also seem to recall calling me a clown in a previous post, in which I had not in any way gotten personal with you. Furthermore, your accusation that I am debating your from behind a closed door, in a situation in which I have debated fairly and in the open, is outrageous.
does this mean you're not coming to my birthday party?
This conversation is a waste of energy. I'm out.
Brandon9000 wrote:This conversation is a waste of energy. I'm out.
So you don't want to make up? Oh cmon, let's be friends. We'll go for ice cream.....
Some time back, I posted a thread about undisclosed Pentagon papers that postulated just the opposite of global warming. Sorry I can't find it now, but should I have the time later, I will search for it.
Letty wrote:Some time back, I posted a thread about undisclosed Pentagon papers that postulated just the opposite of global warming. Sorry I can't find it now, but should I have the time later, I will search for it.
do you mean global cooling? I'd like to see that....
Letty wrote:Some time back, I posted a thread about undisclosed Pentagon papers that postulated just the opposite of global warming. Sorry I can't find it now, but should I have the time later, I will search for it.
do you mean global cooling? I'd like to see that....
I'll try and find it Bi, but I can't remember the title of my own thread. Sometimes I get too clever.
Here it is, but the Yahoo page has expired. Hmmmm.
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=19564
I don't know how to retrieve the info.
