Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Random thoughts and interesting tidbits. . .
. . .focused on current economical and political events.
"But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."
Thomas Jefferson
The Colonies
Oft Visited Websites
Blog Archive
-
▼
2010
(222)
-
▼
January
(29)
- Gov. Johnson addresses Republican Liberty Caucus i...
- The Japanese Want the US Out
- A Tale Of Two Speeches
- Southern Avenger: Welfare Is A Distraction
- Despite Rejecting Government Help, Ford Pulls In $...
- Me Want iPad
- Medina on State Sovereignty
- Employer In UK Told She Cannot Discriminate Agains...
- Keynes vs. Hayek
- Inflation
- Quote - Frank Zappa
- Quote - St. Augustine
- "According to a George Mason University Study, Geo...
- Rex Murphy on Climate Change
- Southern Avenger: Sarah Palin, Rand Paul, and the ...
- Murray Rothbard On The Founding of the Fed
- Minimum Wage Laws Destory American Samoa Economy
- Can I Move To Texas?
- 20 to 30 Years of Global Cooling?
- Fleet Foxes
- J.P. Morgan Profits From Food Stamps
- I Pledge
- Market St. In San Francisco, 1905.
- Jim Carrey Wants To Save The Planet (An In Living ...
- One Happy-Face Cookie Maker Sues Another Happy-Fac...
- President Of Iceland Attacked for British Stupidity
- Helen Thomas: Why Do They Attack Us?
- The Southern Avenger: Political Science?
- Afghan Protest Signs Are Nicer Than Ours
-
▼
January
(29)
21 comments:
Again, you can't deny scientific data, denier.
Denier? lol...not many times in history has the establishment been on the right side. Glad you're certain enough to join their propaganda machine.
The political establishment is different than the scientific consensus and the facts that allow for that consensus.
"The political establishment is different than the scientific consensus and the facts that allow for that consensus."
The scientific consensus you reference is the political establishment. Are you so naive to think politics and science are not interconnected? That science exists within some virtuous bubble?
"The scientific consensus you reference is the political establishment. Are you so naive to think politics and science are not interconnected? That science exists within some virtuous bubble?"
It has nothing to do with naivety. It has to do with the fact that they are two distinct organizations. They may be interconnected, but that does not mean that they are the same. There is no "global warming corporation" that everyone is working for, Josh. And any scientist can reproduce the data of the hockey stick graph. That's what makes it science, not politics.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11646-climate-myths-the-hockey-stick-graph-has-been-proven-wrong.html
That article does not prove the hockey stick's accuracy, nor does it prove that, even if the hockey stick graph is accurate, that it is caused by man.
You can't spot a correlation and then claim one causes the other.
The climate is extremely complex with many variables and to jump to one conclusion and then base all regulations across the world on that one conclusion is idiotic at best.
Sorry, a straight graph over 2000 years that suddenly juts up AT EXACTLY THE SAME TIME THAT WE STARTING SPEWING CO2 INTO THE ATMOSPHERE IS ENOUGH CAUSATION FOR ME>>>>
Which would make sense if CO2 composed a significant portion of our atmosphere.
Also, the graph is only for the past 1000 years, and the science is not perfectly accurate (which is why all of that shady area exists around the line).
That article you have posted has some dribble from a guy from the IPCC saying this is hottest the earth has been in 100,000 years, or even 1,000,000 years...as if he has any proof to make such propagandistic statements.
If the earth has ever been as hot as it is now during the existence of mankind, it discredits the whole theory.
This science is not absolute. We do not know enough. It certainly could be man-made warming; but "could be" is not enough to lay down regulations all over the world directed by a central authority.
"Which would make sense if CO2 composed a significant portion of our atmosphere."
CO2 is only a small amount of the atmosphere, but even that small amount is responsible for 60 degrees of global temperature. If CO2 is increased, the greenhouse effect increases the temperature.
You really need to stop making retarded denier claims.
"Also, the graph is only for the past 1000 years, and the science is not perfectly accurate (which is why all of that shady area exists around the line). "
Of course it is not perfectly accurate! But it is accurate enough. Also, once the graph was reconstructed by Mann after the Congressionally initiated US Academy of Science review of whether it is rational evidence for global warming, Mann reconstructed the graph using other sources, corals, boreholes, ice cores, and extended back to 1700 years. The problem here is that you don't know how to read or watch or think. You are a spoon-fed denier baby.
"If the earth has ever been as hot as it is now during the existence of mankind, it discredits the whole theory."
NO IT DOESN'T. WATCH THE VIDEO AND THINK YOU BONEHEAD. THE CLIMATE IS A COMPLEX OF MANY FACTORS>
"This science is not absolute. We do not know enough. It certainly could be man-made warming"
Yes, it fucking is. There is no other reason why there would be a sudden shift up in temperature. It is not the sun, it is not the oceanic cycles, it is not anything else. Your skepticism merely amounts to irrational paranoia.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPA-8A4zf2c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAtD9aZYXAs
Mann's hockey stick graph IS accurate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jxi-OlkmxZ4
Move ahead to 4:35.
CO2 Parts per million NEVER went above 300 parts per million in 600,000 years. It is only in the last 150 years that it has. SCIENCE, NOT PARANOIA>
8:50. Based on accurate ice cores.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jxi-OlkmxZ4
You guys should be charged for envirnmentally degrading the atmosphere through the useless expenditure of hot air debating a non issue.
Shame ,shame, Shame.
Chris can't help expending hot air. His actions are simply the result of trillions of actions before him, leaving him with no control or choice over his own actions.
I, however, chose to post this message because I can see free will when it is staring me in the face.
"You guys should be charged for envirnmentally degrading the atmosphere through the useless expenditure of hot air debating a non issue.
Shame ,shame, Shame."
It is better than wasting my breath on conservation when no one wants to conserve. Both are the same issue. The apocalyptic consequences of the overuse of resources is just as dire as the consequences of global warming. Yet, we have known that over-use of the environment could lead to the destruction of humanity for a long time. What have we been doing about it?
"Chris can't help expending hot air. His actions are simply the result of trillions of actions before him, leaving him with no control or choice over his own actions.
I, however, chose to post this message because I can see free will when it is staring me in the face."
Just because you can wave your arms does not mean that you have existential freedom.
I drive a Yaris and drive slow to maximize efficiency. I grow as much food as I can in a sustainable manner. I turn off lights not in use. I have energy efficient light bulbs. I am aware of the quantity of packaging material refuse we create. I eat a primarily plant food diet. As I learn more I try to do more but often financial realites get in the way. There is a realtively small but growing number of everyday people, not fanatics, that are slowly examining their own behaviour and making changes. Too few and perhaps too late but no excuse for me not to make an effort.
Debate and discussion as to how one can create a cleaner back yard are never a waste of ones breath.
My soil speaks to me now. It thanks me for caring and responds with abundance.
Post a Comment