Global Warming - Reality or Myth?

[Wazmankg]

Originally Posted by Texas Wedge

EDIT: I don't have a political axe to grind with Al Gore...I have a global warming axe to grind. I'm curious...where was Al in the 70's when global cooling was happening? I'm not being sarcastic either. I don't know how old he is or what he was doing at the time. I'm just curious...

He returned from Vietnam in fall '71, divinity school 71-72, journalist, then Law school '74-'76. Elected to Congress '76, Senate in '84 & Veep in '92. He held the first congressional hearings on climate change in the late 1970s. He turned 60 March 31st.

[coralpro]

Originally Posted by Texas Wedge

Survival of the fittest? That's not a very good stance for a democrat to take. You guys are supposed to be the bleeding hearts who want to put food on every table in the world and take care of every person in the world (whether they asked for help or not) using the tax money you got from the evil people with jobs and money.

Obviously I just razzing you. I agree with much of what you said. We need to start worrying about our own people before we become one of those countries in need ourselves. We have plenty of homeless, hungry people who get nothing while we're spending BILLIONS helping other countries. I guess if you're homeless, the best thing to do is beg for a one-way ticket to a country the U.S. subsidizes so you can get fed on the American tax dollar, too.

Now you are talking rationally. By the way, I've never had someone insult me by calling me a democrat before. I don't have much sympathy even for the ones over here that are able to work but refuse to. Too many soft hearts in America to restore the correct way of life.

[Wazmankg]

Originally Posted by Texas Wedge

Survival of the fittest? That's not a very good stance for a democrat to take. You guys are supposed to be the bleeding hearts who want to put food on every table in the world and take care of every person in the world (whether they asked for help or not) using the tax money you got from the evil people with jobs and money.

Oh you mean like in Iraq.

[coralpro]

Originally Posted by Wazmankg

Oh you mean like in Iraq.

I thought we only gave them guns?

[mr3856a]

Originally Posted by Texas Wedge

That's not a very good stance for a democrat to take. You guys are supposed to be the bleeding hearts who want to put food on every table in the world and take care of every person in the world (whether they asked for help or not) using the tax money you got from the evil people with jobs and money.

This is one of my favorites - the conservative theory that conservatives make all the money and Democrats are a bunch of jobless leaches. I have a hard time reconciling that with the fact that my New York tax dollars are always flowing to red states.

*end threadjack*

[Texas Wedge]

Originally Posted by Wazmankg

Oh you mean like in Iraq.

Sort of, but a little difference there...for some reason, we decided to "bring democracy to Iraq"...which is slightly different from trying to be a mother to the world. In one we're trying to insist a country change to what WE think is a better form of government whether they want it or not and in the other we're trying to feed and shelter every person in the world who can't do it themselves...or don't want to.

Both are bankrupting our own country. Why is it that those of us not in Washington, DC, can see that but the politicians can't? My own theory is that being elected to office somehow has this magical ability to drop one's IQ to 50 (or below)...while increasing your thirst for money 1000 fold. But that's just my ridiculous theory.

[Texas Wedge]

Originally Posted by mr3856a

This is one of my favorites - the conservative theory that conservatives make all the money and Democrats are a bunch of jobless leaches. I have a hard time reconciling that with the fact that my New York tax dollars are always flowing to red states.

*end threadjack*

I wasn't suggesting that Democrats don't work. I apologize if it came across that way.

But I would think maybe we can agree that Democrats (maybe not all individual Dems) as a whole, like the Robin Hood way of taking from the "rich" and giving to the poor. The Dems don't like big businesses and the profits they make.

Do I think the CEO of a company is worth $50 million a year? Absolutely not. But unless that's my company to run, it's not my decision. And I know that if the company didn't have to pay that outrageous salary they might be able to take a smaller profit margin on their products, which would benefit their consumers. But again...it's not up to me. And I don't believe it's up to the government either (in MOST cases).

[Bigvivec]

Originally Posted by Texas Wedge

I wasn't suggesting that Democrats don't work. I apologize if it came across that way.

But I would think maybe we can agree that Democrats (maybe not all individual Dems) as a whole, like the Robin Hood way of taking from the "rich" and giving to the poor. The Dems don't like big businesses and the profits they make.

Do I think the CEO of a company is worth $50 million a year? Absolutely not. But unless that's my company to run, it's not my decision. And I know that if the company didn't have to pay that outrageous salary they might be able to take a smaller profit margin on their products, which would benefit their consumers. But again...it's not up to me. And I don't believe it's up to the government either (in MOST cases).

Holy sweeping generalizations and oversimplifications Batman!!!

[mr3856a]

Originally Posted by Texas Wedge

I wasn't suggesting that Democrats don't work. I apologize if it came across that way.

But I would think maybe we can agree that Democrats (maybe not all individual Dems) as a whole, like the Robin Hood way of taking from the "rich" and giving to the poor. The Dems don't like big businesses and the profits they make.

Do I think the CEO of a company is worth $50 million a year? Absolutely not. But unless that's my company to run, it's not my decision. And I know that if the company didn't have to pay that outrageous salary they might be able to take a smaller profit margin on their products, which would benefit their consumers. But again...it's not up to me. And I don't believe it's up to the government either (in MOST cases).

I know you weren't being absolutely serious, but again, there's a bit of that included in this post. I think it's our responsibility as a society to contribute to the well-being of others who aren't as well off as we are. I pay my taxes gladly. I don't think of it as taking from the rich and giving to the poor, it's part of our responsibility as citizens.

The Republican attitude is even worse, just in the other direction - they will gladly give billions in tax breaks to oil companies making record profits, but are aghast at even the suggestion of doing anything to help their fellow Americans who might be in need (speaking generally, of course, as you were).

Anyway, that's a whole different subject.

[mr3856a]

Originally Posted by Texas Wedge

Why is it that those of us not in Washington, DC, can see that but the politicians can't?

That's a fabulous question, and I have many thoughts on the subject. I'll spare you most of them, but a) in in a lot of parts of the world we need to buy our friends; b) politicians use these programs to buy their friends (if you donate $50,000 to my campaign, I'll write $50,000,000 in food aid to your country); and c) I guarantee you there are friends, donors, supporters, etc. skimming off the top of 99.9999999999999999% of those programs (and in some cases the actual principles themselves - Halliburton's stock price was around $5 when we invaded Iraq, and right now it's at $46.84; I wonder how many shares "Deferment" Dick has in his "blind trust"...).

Anyway, I think for the most part it's a sham used to line people's pockets.

[Texas Wedge]

Originally Posted by Wazmankg

He returned from Vietnam in fall '71, divinity school 71-72, journalist, then Law school '74-'76. Elected to Congress '76, Senate in '84 & Veep in '92. He held the first congressional hearings on climate change in the late 1970s. He turned 60 March 31st.

Again I ask out of ignorance...were those first congressional hearings on climate change seeking an answer to how to stop the global cooling phenomenon of the 70's?

[Texas Wedge]

Originally Posted by mr3856a

I know you weren't being absolutely serious, but again, there's a bit of that included in this post. I think it's our responsibility as a society to contribute to the well-being of others who aren't as well off as we are. I pay my taxes gladly. I don't think of it as taking from the rich and giving to the poor, it's part of our responsibility as citizens.

The Republican attitude is even worse, just in the other direction - they will gladly give billions in tax breaks to oil companies making record profits, but are aghast at even the suggestion of doing anything to help their fellow Americans who might be in need (speaking generally, of course, as you were).

Anyway, that's a whole different subject.

Honestly, I don't mind paying my fair share of taxes, either. I don't mind helping those in need. I'm all for it. It does bother me, though, that so many people (usually the rich who can afford the best tax attorneys) find so many loopholes that they end up paying no more in taxes than I do and they made millions compared to my little pittance.

That's actually why I like the idea of a fair or flat tax better than what we have now. A fair tax is basically a consumption tax and the rich buy more and spend more than the poor, so they will be taxed more and there are no loopholes for that kind of tax. And more importantly, we have no need for an IRS anymore. I know the argument against it is that if a person making a million a year doesn't spend any more than a person making $100k a year, then they are being taxed the same and the levels of taxation are completely uneven (percentagewise). So, in theory, you may be taxed on 100% of your income while a person making millions may only be taxed on 30% of his income. Yet, by using a taxation like this, would anyone agree that our tax revenue would most likely increase? I think so. All the wealthy people who pay someone to avoid having to pay their taxes would actually end up paying taxes they usually avoid through some legal loophole.

Okay...now you guys can crush me ...

We seem to have gotten off-topic a bit, but that's okay. It looks like my face is global warming in this smiley...

[mr3856a]

Originally Posted by Texas Wedge

Honestly, I don't mind paying my fair share of taxes, either. I don't mind helping those in need. I'm all for it. It does bother me, though, that so many people (usually the rich who can afford the best tax attorneys) find so many loopholes that they end up paying no more in taxes than I do and they made millions compared to my little pittance.

You'll get no argument from me there, friend. Even I manage to keep my actual taxes paid to the federal government well under what my actual tax bracket is.

I agree with you, though, there's only one reason the tax code needs to be books that stack 18 feet high - all the loopholes. The other cool thing about the flat tax is that there would be no money laundering anymore - if you make $1,000,000 bucks illegally and spend it... you're taxed.

I don't think our system will ever change, though, if for only the reason that you'd put essentially 3 cottage industries out of business - accountants, tax lawyers, and auditors.

*end threadjack*

[fireman07]

I thinks its natural but helped along buy us. 100 yrs from now I can give you a better answer.

[xnavyct]

Now here's an article by a scientist that says we are about to start having global cooling -

Sorry to ruin the fun, but an ice age cometh | The Australian


I'd imagine you could find a science article championing every theory under the sun (no pun intended) but I thought this was interesting reading...

[GolfSavage]

Originally Posted by xnavyct

Now here's an article by a scientist that says we are about to start having global cooling -

Sorry to ruin the fun, but an ice age cometh | The Australian


I'd imagine you could find a science article championing every theory under the sun (no pun intended) but I thought this was interesting reading...

Gee, the guy who wrote this MUST be on some oil-company payroll!

[mr3856a]

Originally Posted by xnavyct

Now here's an article by a scientist that says we are about to start having global cooling -

Sorry to ruin the fun, but an ice age cometh | The Australian


I'd imagine you could find a science article championing every theory under the sun (no pun intended) but I thought this was interesting reading...

It might be relevant if the gentleman had a background that would even remotely qualify him for such an assessment:

Philip K. Chapman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The guy's an astronaut.

[Wazmankg]

Originally Posted by mr3856a

It might be relevant if the gentleman had a background that would even remotely qualify him for such an assessment:

Philip K. Chapman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The guy's an astronaut.

and his article was debunked a few days later in the same newspaper by Dr. David Karoly... who is actually a climate scientist with a doctorate in meteorology. He's a professor at the School of Earth Sciences - University of Melbourne.

[coralpro]

Originally Posted by xnavyct

Now here's an article by a scientist that says we are about to start having global cooling -

Sorry to ruin the fun, but an ice age cometh | The Australian


I'd imagine you could find a science article championing every theory under the sun (no pun intended) but I thought this was interesting reading...

I could only get part way through the first half before I decided this guy doesn't know his rear from a hole in the ground.

[Texas Wedge]

Originally Posted by mr3856a

It might be relevant if the gentleman had a background that would even remotely qualify him for such an assessment:

Philip K. Chapman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The guy's an astronaut.

And Al Gore is journalist turned lawyer turned politician. What's your point? And before you go there...Al Gore (as Waz pointed out) was championing global warming (or maybe it was global cooling back then, I still don't know for sure) back in the 70's when he first took office. He didn't have any scientific background or a panel of scientists fretting over global warming.

I guess this is why it keeps coming back to Al Gore. When someone else's opinion differs from the mainstream, you guys always say HE's paid by the oil companies or HE's not a scientist, HE's an astronaut, etc. You're not debunking his theory, you're discrediting HIM.

Do I think this guy is right? I don't know. I don't pretend to know. But to discredit him based solely on the fact that he's not a university scientist blah blah blah...???

and totally off-topic...we had a forecast of an 80-90% chance of rain on Sunday and I didn't get a single drop at my house! What do meteorologists and climatologists really know anyway? I could have been making plans to play golf, but some weather.com site said 80-90% chance of rain, so I made other plans.

[coralpro]

TW, there have been people for years that knew pollution of the atmosphere would hurt us. I believe one of the first was a dutch man back in the late 1800's. I believe Gore had to be the first or one of the first to start trying to raise awareness so people, like you, might listen.

[Texas Wedge]

Originally Posted by coralpro

TW, there have been people for years that knew pollution of the atmosphere would hurt us. I believe one of the first was a dutch man back in the late 1800's. I believe Gore had to be the first or one of the first to start trying to raise awareness so people, like you, might listen.

Yes, and there were scientists in the 70's that thought we were about to enter an ice age and wanted to do something to melt the polar ice caps so that people like you would feel like they were doing something.

[coralpro]

Originally Posted by Texas Wedge

Yes, and there were scientists in the 70's that thought we were about to enter an ice age and wanted to do something to melt the polar ice caps so that people like you would feel like they were doing something.

True but that was the 70's. Elvis was still alive then. It has only been in the last few years scientist have been able to put together the info from all the ice cores and evaluate it and compare to existing data today to see the comparisons.

[GolfSavage]

Originally Posted by coralpro

True but that was the 70's. Elvis was still alive then. It has only been in the last few years scientist have been able to put together the info from all the ice cores and evaluate it and compare to existing data today to see the comparisons.

So if Elvis had stayed alive, the ice age would have happened?

[coralpro]

Originally Posted by GolfSavage

So if Elvis had stayed alive, the ice age would have happened?

Now you are understanding the climate situation properly. Couldn't get much cooler than Elvis.

[Texas Wedge]

Originally Posted by coralpro

Now you are understanding the climate situation properly. Couldn't get much cooler than Elvis.

My apologies to you for ever doubting you. You have proven your mastery of the subject.

[GolfSavage]

Originally Posted by coralpro

Now you are understanding the climate situation properly. Couldn't get much cooler than Elvis.

I assumed the hunka, hunka burnin' love acted as a balancing force!

[coralpro]

Originally Posted by GolfSavage

I assumed the hunka, hunka burnin' love acted as a balancing force!

That only kept it tolerable inside the igloos.

[mr3856a]

Originally Posted by Texas Wedge

I guess this is why it keeps coming back to Al Gore. When someone else's opinion differs from the mainstream, you guys always say HE's paid by the oil companies or HE's not a scientist, HE's an astronaut, etc. You're not debunking his theory, you're discrediting HIM.

That's because all of the "experts" offered up by our right-leaning friends in this thread have either been on oil company payrolls or astronauts. Is that my fault?

If an auto mechanic wrote a book on renaissance art, I probably wouldn't spend a lot of wondering whether his conclusions were right or wrong, either.

[xnavyct]

Originally Posted by mr3856a

That's because all of the "experts" offered up by our right-leaning friends in this thread have either been on oil company payrolls or astronauts. Is that my fault?

If an auto mechanic wrote a book on renaissance art, I probably wouldn't spend a lot of wondering whether his conclusions were right or wrong, either.

I never offered up the article I linked to by an astronaut as an 'expert opinion'. Or even indicated that I thought it was accurate, if you'd like to reread the post. I called it interesting, and even said "I'd imagine you could find a science article championing every theory under the sun (no pun intended)....

I merely thought it was interesting that one can find opinions 'all over the place' on what is going on with the climate.

Unless someone says it in writing, don't assume you know the purpose of a post.

[mr3856a]

Originally Posted by xnavyct

I never offered up the article I linked to by an astronaut as an 'expert opinion'. Or even indicated that I thought it was accurate, if you'd like to reread the post. I called it interesting, and even said "I'd imagine you could find a science article championing every theory under the sun (no pun intended)....

I merely thought it was interesting that one can find opinions 'all over the place' on what is going on with the climate.

Unless someone says it in writing, don't assume you know the purpose of a post.

Silly me - I thought it a safe assumption that when someone posts something directly on topic which they call "interesting" that they may actually think it's relevant.

[xnavyct]

Originally Posted by mr3856a

Silly me - I thought it a safe assumption that when someone posts something directly on topic which they call "interesting" that they may actually think it's relevant.

Relevant to the thread discussion, that there are 'other' opinions out there, yes. Someones actual opinion? You can't assume that. As I stated earlier in the thread, I do believe that we are experiencing global warming - which is the exact opposite of what this astronaut was claiming.

[wb4tjh]

I think the biggest human-influenced contribution to "global warming" is the empty, hot air spewing forth every time Al Gore opens his big mouth.....

[mr3856a]

Originally Posted by wb4tjh

I think the biggest human-influenced contribution to "global warming" is the empty, hot air spewing forth every time Al Gore opens his big mouth.....

That was original.

[atm_73]

Originally Posted by atm_73

...some research group (in support of GW BTW) concluded the other day that the warming of the earth's temperature could actually LOWER our risk of devastating hurricanes (was on the road at the time, didn't write down source - sorry). Point is, after Katrina was blamed on Exxon and GM, we had predictions of record hurricane years the past two years with no fulfillment, so now the "conclusion" is drawn that maybe it will have the opposite effect... WHO KNOWS for sure??

Study says global warming not worsening hurricanes - Yahoo! News

Here's a story - maybe we should have warmed the earth sooner to protect New Orleans??

[droogy33]

This is likely the biggest political football I have witnessed in my 47 years.

[coralpro]

Originally Posted by atm_73

Study says global warming not worsening hurricanes - Yahoo! News

Here's a story - maybe we should have warmed the earth sooner to protect New Orleans??

That guy doesn't seem like anyone that should be working in the field he is in. He might make a decent janitor though. I don't know where he went to school but appearantly he missed a bunch of classes.

[petermo]

Originally Posted by GolfSavage

So if Elvis had stayed alive, the ice age would have happened?

Is Elvis dead?

[GolfSavage]

Originally Posted by petermo

Is Elvis dead?

Wow, news does travel slow over to the Dark Continent!

[mr3856a]

Originally Posted by droogy33

This is likely the biggest political football I have witnessed in my 47 years.

It's only political to the Gore-obsessed.