Are we really suppose to take global warming cultists seriously?

[Devastatin Dave]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...#StartComments

I mean, come on, look at this fruit. Sorry, when your spokesmen for your cult is Al Gore and Mr Silly Shirt man, how are we suppose to buy into this scam?

[Mikeus Caesar]

Are we really suppose to take Devastatin Dave seriously?

Because sometimes i don't know if you're serious, or just one big sarcastic jokey stereotype of a right-wing 'americun', being operated by some hippie out of his arthouse studio apartment in San Francisco.

[master of the puppets]

one so prone to vanity is probably easily swayed by the thin arguments of global warming advocates.

[Husar]

It's "supposed", everyone who wants to be taken seriously should know that.

And what's so bad about a dutchman showing that he really cares?

Maybe it doesn't suit the macho attitude of those who don't but then I don't really care about them.

[Slug For A Butt]

Cult or non cult, I'm still a little sceptical full stop.
I don't argue with the fact that the planet is getting warmer but doesn't our planet have a history of hotter and cooler phases? I'm just a bit fed up with it all, and feel that if we knew the next ice age was going to happen in 100 years time we'd be finding reasons to blame ourselves for that too in spite of the fact that we've had ice ages before mankinds industrial revolution.
Sigh... I think if we had been around when Pangaea first split we'd have blamed ourselves for that too.

[Justiciar]

What he said.

I don't disagree with the concept. But I'm sick to death of hearing about it.

[Vladimir]

What he said.

I don't disagree with the concept. But I'm sick to death of hearing about it.

Sick of the clowns which are trod out center stage to advocate their cause. It makes me want to burn half the trees in the US. China doesn't care and reason is AWOL.

[Slug For A Butt]

Bored to death with it.
And we have a BBC radio station dedicated to news (radio 5) which was reporting a few months ago that 56% of scientists surveyed were not convinced that humans were to blame for global warming. So why am I getting it shoved down my throat every day that it's my fault when the majority of the scientists were still sceptical? The station then went on to mention later in the show that "scientists" were telling us how naughty we are and how we need to stop farting etc to save the planet. Is that the minority scientists then?
I'm confused, bored and alienated when it comes to this subject now.

[Devastatin Dave]

Are we really suppose to take Devastatin Dave seriously?

Because sometimes i don't know if you're serious, or just one big sarcastic jokey stereotype of a right-wing 'americun', being operated by some hippie out of his arthouse studio apartment in San Francisco.

You should see me in chaps....

[Mikeus Caesar]

You should see me in chaps....

Sure, that would be a laugh

With regards to the global warming issue - i do kind of agree with the rest of you. I am sick of it being constantly on the news (it's like the case of Madeleine McCann - sure, it's terrible, but i don't bloody care 4 months later!) and do believe that it's not entirely our fault - that the natural warming and cooling periods of the Earth are also responsible, it's just our bad luck that we decided to go and build up civilisation during a warming period.

[Don Corleone]

Oh come on Dave. We all know the only reason you don't agree with global warming and Al Gore is because you're secretly gay. When you start threads like this, it's like a cry for help... "Please, love me. Recognize me for what I am... gay and stuck in a closet".

You got it snoogums. I'm here for you.

[Devastatin Dave]

Oh come on Dave. We all know the only reason you don't agree with global warming and Al Gore is because you're secretly gay. When you start threads like this, it's like a cry for help... "Please, love me. Recognize me for what I am... gay and stuck in a closet".

You got it snoogums. I'm here for you.

And all this time I thought that only one person here on the org understood the REAL me...
Thanks Don to being sensitive to my not so obvious cries. I'm off to pick out some drapes...

[AntiochusIII]

So, more seriously now, the apparent trend in this thread is that overexposure to the issue is causing apathy and skepticism, correct?

[Mikeus Caesar]

So, more seriously now, the apparent trend in this thread is that overexposure to the issue is causing apathy and skepticism, correct?

Correct.

At least, that's the case among us. I think the general population is yet to catch up with us, the intellectual elite.

[Fragony]

Well it kinda hurts when the most polluting conference in history doesn't give any results. Love the Mandela shirt, oh teh martyr, don't want to see him here anymore unless he rows back.

[Geoffrey S]

So, more seriously now, the apparent trend in this thread is that overexposure to the issue is causing apathy and skepticism, correct?

Overexposure could be worse. I think it's more the removal of the actual scientific debate from headlines, replaced with the essentially political side of things (on either side here) which anyone can see for what it is: a sham which isn't about the actual issues at hand.

[Don Corleone]

It's kind of hard to believe that these folks running the conference really consider the issue of man-caused global warming to be serious when each of them flew there in their own personal jet to a South Pacific island.

[Odin]

Maybe if the oceans start rising slightly, or more devestation affects the landscape one of you brilliant minds will come up with a remedy?

Of course the global warming community is overblowing the increase of CO2 into the atmosphere, but is anyone here denying it? I'd like to think of myself as a moderate but Im not hearing a whole lot of moderate solutions.

Its like the democrats circa 2002-5 they had no platform of thier own they just pissed and moaned about what the other party was doing.

any takers on a course of action or am I imagining all the stuff thats occuring environmentally? Its okay if you think I am, I've been accused of living in a fantasy world in my mind for years.

[JR-]

Maybe if the oceans start rising slightly, one of you brilliant minds will come up with a remedy?

sure we will, its called sea defences and they'll work just fine.

it's bangladesh that will suffer, but because they are poor rather than the fact the sea will be higher there.

[Odin]

sure we will, its called sea defences and they'll work just fine.

it's bangladesh that will suffer, but because they are poor rather than the fact the sea will be higher there.

Ah, thanks for falling into the trap.

So we will react when the event occurs, not be proactive to prevent the event?

I'm not sold on doom and gloom yet, but there are a lot of people poo pooing the fact that we are emitting more CO2 into the atmosphere then ever.

Eventually its going to bite us in the behind, and the price is going to be high.

[Husar]

It's almost christmas and still no snow here.
I wouldn't be surprised if we get almost none at all this winter, been that way for a while now. I'm repeating myself but I don't care why that is, I just want my snow back.

[Don Corleone]

It's almost christmas and still no snow here.
I wouldn't be surprised if we get almost none at all this winter, been that way for a while now. I'm repeating myself but I don't care why that is, I just want my snow back.

Take some of mine. We've gotten 2 1/2 feet in the past 2 weeks.

[Husar]

Take some of mine. We've gotten 2 1/2 feet in the past 2 weeks.

Thanks, very nice of you. I can PM you my adress if you cannot afford to deliver enough to cover all of NRW.

[Xiahou]

Ah, thanks for falling into the trap.

So we will react when the event occurs, not be proactive to prevent the event?

If that is the most cost-effective and efficient way to handle a problem? Of course. Again, let me summarize:
1. We don't know what role, if any, we're playing in global climate change.
2. Even if it were man-generated CO2 causing all the warming, it's impossible for us to make the needed cuts in time to stop it.
3. We don't know how much warming there really is and if it would really be such a bad thing.
4. Since we don't know if there is a problem, nor can we do anything about it if there is one- the only choice is to continue being as prosperous as possible so as to be able to deal with any consequences when, and if they occur.

Eventually its going to bite us in the behind, and the price is going to be high.

That's far from clear.

Well it kinda hurts when the most polluting conference in history doesn't give any results. Love the Mandela shirt, oh teh martyr, don't want to see him here anymore unless he rows back.

Don't worry, I'm sure he'll be crying the whole flight home on his private jet while pondering global warming.

It's kind of hard to believe that these folks running the conference really consider the issue of man-caused global warming to be serious when each of them flew there in their own personal jet to a South Pacific island.

It's even better than that, iirc. I'd heard that there wasn't room enough on the island's airport to park all of their private jets that they're flying in on- so many of them, after dropping of their kook environmentalist payloads, had to take off again, empty, and travel to nearby airports with larger hangers. Of course, they'll then have to fly back empty as well to pick up their 'deeply concerned for the environment' passengers before they leave their island resort.

[Odin]

1. We don't know what role, if any, we're playing in global climate change.

Can we agree that we are emitting more CO2 into the atmosphere? I'm no scientist so I wont sit here and claim an absolute that we are the cause of global warming. I will claim we are emitting to much CO2 into the atmosphere, do you agree with this claim? If not then that would be unsurmountable position for us.

2. Even if it were man-generated CO2 causing all the warming, it's impossible for us to make the needed cuts in time to stop it.

So remain status quo and hope for the best? How did that work out in New Orleans (as an abstract point of reference of course )

3. We don't know how much warming there really is and if it would really be such a bad thing.

I can agree on that, I am not above backing down from my position either. However since we cant prove or disprove it either way, I much rather go the prevention route. Better to be safe then sorry IMHO.

4. Since we don't know if there is a problem, nor can we do anything about it if there is one- the only choice is to continue being as prosperous as possible so as to be able to deal with any consequences when, and if they occur.

Thankfully a lot of other intelligent people in the world have the opposite position than you. because now your talking about absolutes yourself "the only choice" isnt the only choice. Again, I dont think the end is near but I do think reducing CO2 emissions should be a goal and is attainable if we try and fail at least we tried.

Of course if you dont believe the problem will end up being tangiable down the road then thats certainly your perogative, however heat waves in the EU killing people, fires on the west coast, floods in the mid west, drought in the east and down under they have had a drought for years.

Best answer I have gotten from the poo pooers on these events are its the natural course of nature, or historically this is normal fare yadda yadda but the ivory tower mentality is cynical at best at this point.

Its a simple enough equation even those committed to shouting down the environmental left certainly cant deny the one signifigant point, can the earth consume our CO2 emissions without having a devestating effect?

Maybe some of you are gamblers, thats cool. I much rather spend a little coin now and eleminate a potential threat down the road. As they say, a little money up front can save you money down the road.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Overexposure could be worse. I think it's more the removal of the actual scientific debate from headlines, replaced with the essentially political side of things (on either side here) which anyone can see for what it is: a sham which isn't about the actual issues at hand.

Well said! These days it's harder to find a graph of all temperature increase data, than it is to find 500 bloggers, politicians, lobbyist groups and general scumbags speaking about how the global warming should be solved by handing them millions of dollars. Worst example I came across lately, was some company owner who said we should stop recycling and taking care of heavy metal pollutions (which are very easy to solve, and in fact all of us are, knowing or not, actually taking care of this at the moment), and instead buy products from his company. Truth is, his company's impact on environment will be 1/1,000,000 of the damage he would cause if people would listen to his BS about not keeping the current systems for reducing heavy metals emission into lakes and similar.

The matter of most interest to everybody is exactly how serious the problem is, with as exact numerical data as possible. (Most) People are not too stupid to realize what needs to be done when they see the hard facts. No, the current mass media coverage focuses less on the hard scientific data than on:
1. presenting a person who is working with the issue, showing how he toasts his breads in the morning or what clothes he is wearing
2. talking about some useless meeting that is being held about the issue - meetings were total idiots who know almost nothing about the issue meet, after getting there by polluting jets, to discuss whether their Dom Perignon or Beluga caviar was most fresh today
3. talking about people who are talking about people who are talking about global warming
4. telling what the consequences could be if the consequences of the consequences of global warming would arise
5. trying to undermine the credibility of the global warming research by not mentioning anything except bogus reports and research made by lobbyist organizations such as oil companies and weapons manufacturers who are seeking to prevent a solution to the global warming problem from happening

[Rodion Romanovich]

1. We don't know what role, if any, we're playing in global climate change.

2. Even if it were man-generated CO2 causing all the warming, it's impossible for us to make the needed cuts in time to stop it.

These two statements are somewhat contradictory. How can you "know" (read: completely without supporting argumentation or scientific data claim) that we can't solve the problem if we've caused it, if you simultaneously claim we don't know how much effect our actions have? If we don't know which part of our actions causes the warming as you claim, then how can you be so sure that we can't eliminate that cause?

3. We don't know how much warming there really is and if it would really be such a bad thing

Have you heard of thermometers?

[Vladimir]

5. trying to undermine the credibility of the global warming research by not mentioning anything except bogus reports and research made by lobbyist organizations such as oil companies and weapons manufacturers who are seeking to prevent a solution to the global warming problem from happening

You forgot to say military industrial complex!

[Fragony]

This the the 'amersfoortse kei'

, but it's really from Norway, last ice-age ended right here so we have these big stones. It's solar activity not CO2. CO2 is just a stfu to raise taxes.

[Viking]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...#StartComments

I mean, come on, look at this fruit. Sorry, when your spokesmen for your cult is Al Gore and Mr Silly Shirt man, how are we suppose to buy into this scam?

Oh, look at Mr. Scientist speaking.