Ah yes, way to ratchet up the fear. Pollution causes warming, except when it causes cooling. Did John Kerry help with this?
Just happened to hear an interview with this Canadian guy whilst driving on the job. Couple of interesting things: Since Canada signed onto Kyoto, their emissions have gone up 25%. In the same time frame, ours have gone up only 15%. Kinda looks like we're already taking care of business.
Another interesting point was how those climatologists and meteorologists who don't get with the global warming program, who provide evidence in contrast to the Gore-ish global warming theories, have funding cut off and are labeled as shills for industrialists.
Some more---consensus doesn't really exist in the scientific world. Many don't have the certainty to support such theories (but claim so to inhibit the loss of funding). The interviewee spoke of two friends who work for NASA in the field of weather and have access to all the fine weather related sensors and other toys that measure temperature and they detect no climate change at all.
Oh yeah, there is indeed a variety of opinions that make a sham of the "consensus" claims of Gore-neacs, who see this as a means to create the type of government control once only seen in socialist and communist states. Hey, looky there! It's the same kind of fear-mongering and accusations of evil often thrown around about Bush!
While just now wishing I could've listened to the guy from the beginning without the interruption of my job, it occurred to me that I might find info on the radio stations web-site. I'll be back.
Nope. No luck. I had to email the host. Hopefully I'll get a response and have stuff for you to peruse. You'll probably crap on it anyway, but I'll post it nonetheless.
First, I'm too damn smart to "crap" an meaningful information. The caveat of course in this case is "meaningful".
Did you watch the BBC clip I so thoughfully provided for you before commenting? Do any research along those lines?
And just out of curiosity, is it that liberals are behind greenhouse gas reduction that you just want so badly to discount it or what?
The punch line of course, is that "meaningful" will be subjectively decided by you after review. Of course that won't really make it meaningful or not.
I did watch the entire (yawn) video you posted and sincerely agree it was thoughtful of you to do so. Which, BTW, would have been more "meaningful" if they spent less time pouring on the drama and more on things like anticipating objections and answering them. An example would be something like: Is there no other possible factor that would contribute to your results that have nothing to do with man-made causes, or something to that effect. (Off the top of my beer filled head, so cut me slack)
No. I'm all for finding cleaner ways of doing things. I've said that before. Nor do I have any interest in discounting things because they're promoted by libs. I do have an interest in knowing all the facts, having other opinions and data available without interference, and knowing jobs and progress won't be trashed just to satisfy some wacky lefty notions that won't play out as advertised. I could do without hype and distortions as well, and there's reason to believe those are well in play in regards to this issue.
The definition of meaningful would include coming from a trusted (i.e. non-involved industry source) and relevant (i.e. related to science, not speculation--like guessing about how this is just like one phase that occurred 5000 years ago, "or something")...
So you asked the question the video did not--great--go find some meaningful (as in above definition) answers and let me know...
Great fine, I can (happily) accept that you don't link your disbelief to your politics SO what (then) do you also check the sources of the naysayers who almost without exception are funded by the industries who stand to lose money if people move away from their pollution causing energies? Why not take the same skeptical view of their motives?
On the communism-suggested connection I am disappointed. Why does wanting to clean the air and keep the planet habitable somehow link the motivation to communism? This is Limbaugh-style reasoning who BTW, makes 35 million a year from creating ditto-heads who say inane things to him (I'm sure he is smirking when he hears it) "This is one of your non-brainwashed ditto-heads and I only listen to your show for the truth"!
Limbaugh spends some time every show trashing global warming, ;linking libs to communists and linking himself (and Walmart) to Good and Truth. Frankly I think he should be tried for crimes against humanity, especially if it is the waved of the distinctly poorly informed "ditto-heads" he influences to work actively against they and their own families SURVIVAL prevails. I'm serious about that. Sadly though, by the time England is a savannah El Rushbo will long be buried--bastard.
I know the rant got off-topic but really--that is where resistance to REALITY most comes from on the radio--wingers like him and IN-SHANNITY and their wannabe copycats coast-to-coast...
Sadly typical. Trash those who disagree by suggesting ulterior motives, such as being hacks for industry. But listen to your own side. Talk of consensus is merely that, talk. There's never any proud displays of polling results. But it's enough for you that they say "all scientists agree". I heard yet another guy, this time on Medved's show, who has taken the opposing stance. Responsibilities prevented more than a few minutes listening. You ask why I don't take the same skeptical view of the motives of the "naysayer". I ask you, why do you just swallow every alarmist statement by the Gore-ite environmentalists? You're all to willing to accuse people of being ignorant Rush robots, but doing so makes it easy to dismiss them. Then you don't have to answer to their challenges.
Everybody wants a cleaner environment. You could poll all those whose factories belch plumes of crap into the air everyday and they'd agree and be sincere in doing so. You'd have them shut down their factories immediately if you could and thousands would be out of work as well as tens of thousands more of those who do business with them. Yet their products and/or services which pollute in their manufacture are needed and serve needed purposes. Your guys are the ones screaming of death and destruction. They should be working on ways of conversion for these guys to help them get it done faster instead of trying to legislate it and fuck up the economy.
The communist angle had to do with the lefties finding another way to take control and run things with their big government ideas. Communism and socialism are failures so environmentalism offered an alternative they could use to get where they want to be. This is a possible reason why the lefties are trying to cram this global warming stuff down our throats. If they convince enough people they are right, they will get the votes and be thought of as saviors. Once in power, they can put the screws to industry. Oh, but wait. I keep forgetting that only the right consists of such people. My bad.
Commenting by HaloScan
