Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I make this attack because liberals hate religion, yet they worship at the altar global warming. How else can you explain the cap and trade fiasco that liberal democrats are pushing, WITH NO EVIDENCE that it will do ANYTHING to cool the earth....that's right....FAITH.
I'm not a liberal, I'm a libertarian. I honor and respect science- not fuzzy science, like global warming, and not 'creation science', which is religion, pure and simple. I have my private religion, but I find that religion, especially the fundamentalist ones, seperates people and causes more trouble than not.
If Creationism was actually subjected to the scientific method, it would...for a lack of a better word...fail. There is no evidence to observe, no experiments to perform. That is a major part of the scientific method. By its own definition, Creationism is founded on that which is explicitly unverifiable. That is not compatible with anything relating to science.
Absolutely. I don't think that I made my point clearly earlier. I DO think that children should be presented with the idea of Creationism in science class so that they can examine it through the lens of the scientific method and come to the conclusion you state above. It's faith based, and that's called religion.
Not really an environmentalist, but I do believe in science. Both of your "sources" are written by right-wing extremist political hacks without a shred of journalistic credibility or accountability.
DeWeese is considered by the mainstream to be a nut who's afraid that the US is going to give sovereign land to the UN and eventually the North American continent will form a single union. Really normal there. Credible source. He states that global warming is a hoax invented to advance political agendas. I guess you don't believe science, but will let yourself be scammed by self-aggrandizing nuts on the political and societal fringe if it suits your very peculiar world view.
Enjoy the next tea party, as your once great political party shrinks to a core of protectionist fanatics who can't get elected dog catcher.
Oh, and the Tea Party movement was co-opted by the NeoCons from the Libertarians, the true party of small government and defenders of the constitution.
This reply is along the lines of what I expected. And, not meaning to hijack the thread from its original intent, I would like to make a few counter-points...
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlassoff
Not really an environmentalist, but I do believe in science. Both of your "sources" are written by right-wing extremist political hacks without a shred of journalistic credibility or accountability.
I "believe" in science as well, but not selective science...which is what it appears many Global Warming fanatics present.
As far as my "sources" go? Right-wing journalistic hacks? Ad homonim attacks. I don't know all that much about DeWeese, but I think Thomas Sowell's credentials as a journalist, scholar, and writer, will survive your best shot.
Two points to remember as well: One, neither man claims to be a scientist. Their points are that scientists who go against the Global Warming bandwagon are either being selectively ignored or shouted down. Or vilified. This is common tactic of the far-left, and oft seen on college campuses when conservative speakers are invited to talk. That is, if one cannot refute their points and positions, then shout them down or threaten them.
Second point is that, in another realm, it matters little whether or not whether or not they are scientists, but rather, do they present a truth?
Quote:
DeWeese is considered by the mainstream to be a nut who's afraid that the US is going to give sovereign land to the UN and eventually the North American continent will form a single union. Really normal there. Credible source. He states that global warming is a hoax invented to advance political agendas. I guess you don't believe science, but will let yourself be scammed by self-aggrandizing nuts on the political and societal fringe if it suits your very peculiar world view.
Who/What is the "mainstream"? Again, I don't want to run this on too long, but this statement is reminicent of what Bernard Goldberg (author of "Bias") wrote as to the liberal slant in the mass media. It is not, as he said, so much that many in the industry intentionally slant the news, as it is that they are so cloistered in their ideological cage, they honestly believe they ARE the mainstream! LOL
Point being, Sowell and DeWeese can be the biggest hacks in the world, but it begs the larger question of is what they say true? IS counter-evidence being ignored or censored? It sure seems to be. And one supporting point is the sheer hysteria (and if the shoe fits, wear it) which erupts anytime the "mainstream" Global Warming folks are challenged.
Quote:
Enjoy the next tea party, as your once great political party shrinks to a core of protectionist fanatics who can't get elected dog catcher.
LMAO. MY political party? See, that just goes to demonstrate a bit of my points. To wit, that those of your ilk can often only lash out and make negative presumptions. What do you know about my own position, for instance, on "protectionism"? I HAVE no political party. I am a Texas/Southern conservative independent and personally believe the Republican Party deserved its own destruction at the polls because of its incompetence. But that is another story....
Much of this was addressed earlier. However, to take it up again, you present DeWeese as a "nut" based on his belief that there is a trend toward a continental Union and so on and so forth?
Well, at one time, it was considered "paranoid" to think that the nations of Europe would ever surrender their soverienty to a EU. At one point in time it would have been considered crazy to think the SCOTUS would ever invoke so-called "international law" -- as opposed to the Consitution of the United States -- as being a basis of its logic in rulings.
So, just another left-wing ploy which is dependent, IMHO, on the public having a short memory. That is, label the fears "paranoia" or "nuts" or whatever. Then when they do become reality, present them as desirable and the NEXT logical progression stemming from the original, to be the same paranoia and screw-ball thinking. And ingenious method, I admit...!
I think this thread is at a stalemate. If you refuse to believe the vast majority of scientist and scientific evidence of global warming, than there is nothing here that is going to change your mind. However, the majority of people in the United States, including conservatives now accept the fact that humans can affect the environment. Throughout history some reactionaries refused to believe science, like the Church refusing to believe that the Earth revolved around the Sun. They are remembered as idiots. I do hope that you are right and global warming is a myth, but I am afraid you are wrong.
Thank you for a reasonable, intelligent, and civil reply. Just a few points to make though (did I say that earlier? LOL)...
My main point is that a lot of counter-evidence is being shouted down and/or ignored. I am not, per-se, doubting that that perhaps there is not something to Global Warming. Maybe there is. What concerns me is this "Bandwagon" approach to it (I am sure you know of the famous essay on Progoganda Methods).
Where Sun revolves around the earth analogy fails as relates to Global Warming -- I think -- is that, contrary to how you intend it -- is that the latter "bunch" are now the ones who punish (in some form or fashion) those who do nothing more than try and provide counter-evidence.
But really...what it comes down to with me, personally, is NOT that I deny there exists such a phenonmenon as Global Warming (although I am old enough to remember how, back in the 70's, there was the same concern about a new Ice Age...and Silent Spring...and all). Rather, that IF it does exist, then it is something on such a broad scale that no individual nor group of them possesses the knowledge to presume to know how to "reverse" it.
As mentioned in another post, the flurocarbons put out by all the aersol cans ever produced in human history pale in comparison to the ozone destroying products released into the atmosphere by ONE single volcano. Point being, that even if the earth's temp has increased a bit (which is arguably a natural cycle anyway), the effect humans can have on it is not only negligible, but that such a thought that we CAN, will be used and manipulated by politicians and beaurecrats to empower themselves by controlling others.
Litter on the highways, Keep America Beautiful (I am old enough to remember that 60's campaign! LOL) is one thing. Because, as you allude to, it is an area where the problem was obvious and could be taken care of by people making a concious desire to do something. And it was. Global Warming though, exists on such a scale as to not only not be honestly discussed, but the harm which might result if we let a few True Believers dictate the terms, will be much worse than the problem itself can ever be...
OK. I am outta here for now. Thanks again for a great response!
Alright, this discussion long ago veered off topic.
I am going to say I dont care alot for politics. I find that people who are very into politics, whether liberal or conservative, to be boring and annoying. I guess if I had to label myself I would be moderate or a pragmatist. Sometimes I agree with conservatives and sometimes with liberals.
What does bother me is how supporters of creationism try to change the subject, rather than legitimately defend it as a valid science. Why is that? Because they can't, since creationism is mixing faith with science. This discussion was about why creationism shouldn't be taught in schools, not about global warming or universal health care.
As, for global warming. Well, I believe a science class could have a scientific discussion if it is real or not. Lets say it is fake, than science can prove that. And vice versa.
As, for creationism. It it pseudo-scientific. It relies on science, evolution, combined with faith, a higher power. The faith part has no science to it. Its an attempt to sneak religion into public schools. More specifically to sneak Judeo-Christian religion into public schools. The United States was founded on the separation between church and state. Religion belongs in the home and not in public schools. This attempt to mix church and state is purely un-American.
As mentioned in another post, the flurocarbons put out by all the aersol cans ever produced in human history pale in comparison to the ozone destroying products released into the atmosphere by ONE single volcano. Point being, that even if the earth's temp has increased a bit (which is arguably a natural cycle anyway), the effect humans can have on it is not only negligible, but that such a thought that we CAN, will be used and manipulated by politicians and beaurecrats to empower themselves by controlling others.
This is the sort of misinformation that really bugs me, and it brings everything you say into doubt since your information sources are obviously lacking in scientific credibility.
Quote:
Volcanoes have been popping off for eons while the ozone layer has remained happily intact. Measurements of ozone concentration over Antarctica, conducted since 1956, showed no hole until about 1975, and an unmistakable and deepening hole since about 1980. No volcanic activity matches that pattern.
Volcanic eruptions do emit hydrogen chloride (chlorine is what breaks down the ozone layer -- that was Sherwood Rowland's discovery). But they also spew out huge amounts of water vapor. Hydrogen chloride dissolves in water. Most of the chlorine from an eruption never reaches the high stratosphere where the ozone layer is, because it washes down in rain. The massive eruptions of El Chichon in Mexico in 1982 and Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991 produced only small increases in stratospheric chlorine.
Furthermore the chemical agents that DO eat up the ozone layer have been clearly detected. Their path of destruction is now so well demonstrated that even the companies that make those chemicals believe the evidence. Ozone depletion is caused by chlorine compounds called CFCs produced and emitted by human beings -- Freons in our cooling systems, gases in our insulating foams, solvents in our electronics factories.
The above link also sorts out how this ridiculous volcano story came to be about. The condensed version follows:
Quote:
Rowland described in his speech the sequence through which these people, reading science through a filter of denial, have popularized their volcano theory. ...after a 1976 eruption of Mount Augustine in Alaska...One geologist wrote a paper in 1980 hypothesizing...a huge amount of chlorine must have been lost...into the stratosphere...then calculated, for the fun of it, how much chlorine might have been released.
He guessed it might have been 289 million tons -- 570 times the amount of CFCs produced in the world in 1975.
That paper...was seized by...a man named R.A. Maduro...who worked for a publication of the extreme left/right wing Lyndon LaRouche. Then Dixy Lee Ray...picked up the story, but garbled it further...and mistakenly attributed the huge number for the volcano in California to the one in Alaska. The mixed-up story was picked up from Ray's book by the Wall Street Journal, the National Review, Omni, and the Washington Post, but the person who pounded the volcano theory into the public consciousness was none other than talk-show host Rush Limbaugh In his best-selling book Limbaugh stretched the facts still further: "Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines spewed forth more than a thousand times the amount of ozone-depeting chemical in one eruption than all the fluorocarbons manufactured by wicked, diabolical, and insensitive corporations in history." He claims he got this information from Dixy Lee Ray's book, "the most footnoted, documented book I have ever read.".
So Sherwood Rowland and other atmospheric chemists are patiently answering volcano questions, though Rowland says, "it will be difficult for my message to catch up with their misstatements."
Getting your science lessons from good 'ol Rush, are we?
Short Reply: False. Volcanoes account for at most a few percent
of the chlorine in the stratosphere.
And if you were wondering, the CO2 emissions from volcanoes are also much less than from humans:
Quote:
Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)
Humans are outperforming volcanoes - one of nature's most devastating weapons - by a large margin. And you still don't believe that humans can have a significant impact to the Earth's well-being?
I think that a low consumption lifestyle is great, recycling, reducing, reusing, all that is wonderful. What I hate is when the government gets involved to mandate it, or corporations/wall street get involved to make money off of it (Al Gore??). That bothers me.
Location: The land of sugar... previously Houston and Austin
5,429 posts, read 14,890,155 times
Reputation: 3672
Quote:
Originally Posted by mimimomx3
I think that a low consumption lifestyle is great, recycling, reducing, reusing, all that is wonderful. What I hate is when the government gets involved to mandate it, or corporations/wall street get involved to make money off of it (Al Gore??). That bothers me.
I'm 100% with you on that. It won't let me rep you anymore!
As far as everything else -- remember people often have other things that function as their "gods". Money, work, fame, an ideal of some kind, etc. If it's unfair for the government to back Christian theologies, it's just as unfair IMO for it to back anything else that functions as a "god" or religion of some sort.
This is the sort of misinformation that really bugs me, and it brings everything you say into doubt since your information sources are obviously lacking in scientific credibility.
And this is the type deflection that really bugs me. And at least 50 million Chinese don't give a damn either way.
Skipping -- for the moment -- thru the volcano (or not) phenonmenon, I just LOVE the way the larger point is ignored. Which is that those committed to the Global Warming "church" will ignore or vilify, respectively, all other evidence/speakers. If so confident in it, then let the debate begin!
The volcano vis a vis aersol cans may well BE false (and no, I didn't get it from Rush Limbaugh...another ploy, perhaps, eh? ), but the source you present is hardly un-biased.
Quote:
The above link also sorts out how this ridiculous volcano story came to be about. The condensed version follows:
I read it all your stuff. In fact, I enjoyed reading it. It could be correct. In which case when whole story is told, I will -- with no qualm nor qualification -- agree I listened to the wrong source! It could also be wrong, as there are others disputing it. Unlike many Global Warming adherents, I have no agenda nor belief system dependent upon it one way or another...
Humans are outperforming volcanoes - one of nature's most devastating weapons - by a large margin. And you still don't believe that humans can have a significant impact to the Earth's well-being?
It seems to be necessary for those on your side to present those who disagree in a questionable, if not negative, light. Regardless of the issue, the common denominator it is that those who disagree or are skeptical must be motivated by ignorance and/or deliberately ignoring solid "evidence" As if it should be unthinkingly accepted as coming from the same sort of "burning bush" they often accuse fundamentalist Christians of embracing.
When did I ever say I didn't think humans can have an impact on the environment? What I SAID, and stand by, is that Global Warming -- if it exists at all -- is one on a scale that it damn well better be debated/discussed -- with no censorship -- before the country/world starts passing laws. Because the "solutions" may end up being worse than the so-called problem!
Which is generally the end-result when legislative mandates come into play over something that not a person nor group of them in this world has enough knowledge about, to presume to solve. What transpires, invariably, is self-righteous prophets (such as algore) and beaurecrats empowering themselves.
Why the hell would anybody listen to this hypocrite when he doesn't even live a life vis a vis the edicts he would impose on everybody else? Carbon credits, my Bonnie Blue Lone Star Texas/Southern rear end...
With all that said, I DO agree that people can make a difference as concerns the environment. Individual concerns and efforts can make all the difference in the world. Pun intended. But all too often the "environmentalists" want to impose a larger agenda on others which will empower themselves, ultimately.
And too, ironically, they seem to regard "Mother Earth" as a very fragile deity....
Last edited by TexasReb; 07-17-2009 at 07:30 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It seems to be necessary for those on your side to present those who disagree in a questionable, if not negative, light. Regardless of the issue, the common denominator it is that those who disagree or are skeptical must be motivated by ignorance and/or deliberately ignoring solid "evidence" As if it should be unthinkingly accepted as coming from the same sort of "burning bush" they often accuse fundamentalist Christians of embracing. 
