Skip to main content
Help Center Community Shop

I'm SOOOOO confused!!!!

Ramtinxxl
Seems the politicians and "celebrities" are the only ones with answers regarding the Iraq war and "human-caused" global warming. These people are obviously well-schooled in both matters or they would surely remain silent. I know for a fact that some "celebrities" have finished high school and most of them probably read a lot of periodicals--like People, Variety, and Cosmo. The pols are obviously smart--most of them duped a significant number of voters in their respective geographic locales into being elected. History has shown us that only the brightest bulbs on the tree attain to that level.

On the other hand, generals and scientists almost invariably offer opposite views from the geniuses mentioned above--on both counts, in their respective fields. Who do these people think they are? Devoting their entire lives and careers to being wrong? How foolish of them! Expensive educations at the finest instutitions, the most noble academies, millions of man-hours of experience in things that puzzle the average pedestrian and they think they know more than "celebrities" and politicians? I just don't know whom to trust anymore.

Surely Sheryl Crow is now the go-to authority on climatology. Surely Al Gore has no agenda other than benevolent concern for humanity. Surely Nancy Pelosi's experience with GI Joe dolls as an adolescent ranks her with the great military minds. Rosie O'Donnell, with her incredible wisdom and staggering intellect, has the authorative answer on world events.

I'm so confused...[B)]

Just thought you should know. [:I]
0

Comments

36 comments

Date Votes
  • Ramtinxxl
    quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
    quote:Originally posted by Ramtinxxl
    just shoot me a tee-shirt with "GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL" printed on the front and I'll wear it for just you. Of course, I reserve the right to have printed on the back: "but I didn't do it."


    I'm reminded of a quote: "No single raindrop believes it is to blame for the flood"

    Anyways, I'm glad you acknowledge that there is global warming trend. Any inferences on my part that you do not agree with this are my fault. Happy now?

    I'll chalk that up to debating several other posters at once.

    The assertion that humans have no effect on climate is silly. Was there much acid rain prior to the industrial revolution? How about smog?

    Global C02 levels HAVE risen in the last few centuries. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Humans have affected CO2 levels by a) producing CO2 b) Wiping out the forests which scrub it from the air.

    In any case, I'd still like to see the work of these unnamed "experts" you cite repeatedly


    Who, exactly, was logging "global CO2 levels" in, say 1804? 1734? 1639? What sort of instruments were they using? How long did it take them to trek from one spot to another AROUND THE GLOBE and set up their instruments? Blah, blah, blah. You spout as much (or more) mumbo-jumbo as you allege that I do.

    Anyway, I'm done with you. I stand by my original post...and I'm still confused. You, sir, are not even in the running for "expert"--even YOU don't share the illustrious qualifications of algore or Sheryl Crow on matters of climatology. Now, you might get some notice if you can solve the Iraq withdrawal dilemma.
    0
  • Rack Ops
    For someone who insistantly demands that I re-read your posts, I'd expect you to read mine....

    Measuring levels of CO2 through time is something that can be done with those nifty ice core samples that were discussed earlier.

    I'm puzzled by your insistance on invoking Al Gore's name in every post you've made on this thread (with the expection of 1). Is his name some sort of magical talisman? I'm sure Al Gore believes the sky is blue and water is wet....that doesn't make it any less true.

    I have little use for Al Gore. I haven't seen "an inconvient truth" nor do I plan to. As far as I'm concern, the man is a hypocrit at best. The fact remains that humans are at least somewhat responsible for the environmental changes we are currently seeing.

    I have noticed that after two requests for citations supporting your position the only response I've received is more bluster.

    I'll try again: Can you please provide ANY peer reviewed work which supports your position?
    0
  • Ramtinxxl
    Global warming debunked

    By ANDREW SWALLOW - The Timaru Herald | Saturday, 19 May 2007

    Climate change will be considered a joke in five years time, meteorologist Augie Auer told the annual meeting of Mid Canterbury Federated Farmers in Ashburton this week.

    Man's contribution to the greenhouse gases was so small we couldn't change the climate if we tried, he maintained.
    "We're all going to survive this. It's all going to be a joke in five years," he said.

    A combination of misinterpreted and misguided science, media hype, and political spin had created the current hysteria and it was time to put a stop to it.

    "It is time to attack the myth of global warming," he said.

    Water vapour was responsible for 95 per cent of the greenhouse effect, an effect which was vital to keep the world warm, he explained.

    "If we didn't have the greenhouse effect the planet would be at minus 18 deg C but because we do have the greenhouse effect it is plus 15 deg C, all the time."

    The other greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, and various others including CFCs, contributed only five per cent of the effect, carbon dioxide being by far the greatest contributor at 3.6 per cent.

    However, carbon dioxide as a result of man's activities was only 3.2 per cent of that, hence only 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gases in total. Human-related methane, nitrogen dioxide and CFCs etc made similarly minuscule contributions to the effect: 0.066, 0.047 and 0.046 per cent respectively.

    "That ought to be the end of the argument, there and then," he said.

    "We couldn't do it (change the climate) even if we wanted to because water vapour dominates."

    Yet the Greens continued to use phrases such as "The planet is groaning under the weight of CO2" and Government policies were about to hit industries such as farming, he warned.

    "The Greens are really going to go after you because you put out 49 per cent of the countries emissions. Does anybody ask 49 per cent of what? Does anybody know how small that number is?

    "It's become a witch-hunt; a Salem witch-hunt," he said.
    0
  • Colt Super
    Why do people get emotional about this stuff ??

    Doug
    0
  • Horse Plains Drifter
    quote:Originally posted by Doug Wilson
    Why do people get emotional about this stuff ??

    Doug
    'cause some hippie/greenie/enviro-whacko wnats you to change how you live your life because HE read some study put out by some other hippie/greenie/enviro-whacko who got a bunch of your tax dollars and has wasted them trying to prove that "Global Warming" is caused by real people with real jobs.
    0
  • Ramtinxxl
    quote:Originally posted by MT357
    quote:Originally posted by Doug Wilson
    Why do people get emotional about this stuff ??

    Doug
    'cause some hippie/greenie/enviro-whacko wnats you to change how you live your life because HE read some study put out by some other hippie/greenie/enviro-whacko who got a bunch of your tax dollars and has wasted them trying to prove that "Global Warming" is caused by real people with real jobs.


    What MT357 said exactly. Of course, if you're ignorant and like to be ignorant about things that have the potential to cost you money and your lifestyle, then you don't have to be "emotional" about it either. You can just pretend to be neutral--and be neutralized with the ignorant masses. [B)][V][:(!]
    0

Please sign in to leave a comment.

Recent Activity

Didn’t find what you’re looking for?