Corvette Forum : DigitalCorvettes.com Corvette Forums banner
1 - 20 of 43 Posts

·
Grey Squirrel
Joined
·
22,780 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
They've just cut the 2007 Hurricane forcast.....seems the water just isn't warm enough. Whatever will the global warmists do? Two straight years and the Hurricane season is a not even a blip of what they wanted us to believe.

More
 

·
DC Crew
Joined
·
20,694 Posts
Mr. Bush must have forgotten to turn his hurricane machine back on. Meddling with nature just hasn't been as fun as it used to be since he caused that horrible disaster down south...

Reminds me of a front page story from the Washington Times this past winter...

"Global Warming Meeting Canceled" with a photo of Washington DC covered in snow.
 

·
Avatar King
Joined
·
996 Posts
They've just cut the 2007 Hurricane forcast.....seems the water just isn't warm enough. Whatever will the global warmists do? Two straight years and the Hurricane season is a not even a blip of what they wanted us to believe.

More
What will they do??
The same thing they have always done. Continue to bitch and moan that we aren't doing enough, while at the same time telling us the debate is over, and all the scientist agree.

Do you really think Al Gore will look at evidence contrary to his beliefs??
Cool ocean temperatures would just be too damn convenient for him to look at.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
31,366 Posts
What will they do??
The same thing they have always done. Continue to bitch and moan that we aren't doing enough, while at the same time telling us the debate is over, and all the scientist agree.

Do you really think Al Gore will look at evidence contrary to his beliefs??
Cool ocean temperatures would just be too damn convenient for him to look at.
:agree: :agree:

this rock has been warming and cooling for millions of years, to think man has or could have anything to do with it is for simple minded people with too much time on thier hands.
 

·
DC Crew
Joined
·
53,226 Posts
I'd rather have the planet warming then heading toward the next ice age.

It's silly to think the temp can stay constant.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
759 Posts
yeah it's been cool out for most of today...

I guess all the environmentalists are just making stuff up.
we can go on trashing the air and water forever with no consequence.

man that al gore sure tried to make everyone look stupid.
good thing we all know better.

of coarse if we're right then we can keep going strong
wearing spf100,000 sunblock
but if gore and the scientists are even partially right and
we do little to nothing. your kids and their kids are screwed!

when are people going to realize that "global warming"
is just a name for man induced climate shift.

I am so glad I never spawned!!! :buhbye:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,300 Posts
Cool Summer so far in Texas, Lakes are full and the cycle begins again.

When something happens that hasn't happened before in history, call me.

Long after we and our childrens, cheldrens, childrens, chilrens are gone from the earth the same weather patterns will still be repeating themselves. IMO

:cheers:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
759 Posts
I just have trouble with the big resistance to telling companys
to clean up their ****.

OK, lets say we take al gore at his word and it turns out he was wrong.
Big companys worldwide would, by law, pollute less and we would invest money on improving on our alternative fuel sources and conservation. Plus creating thousands of jobs in the process.

WHATS THE HARM IN THAT???
what is it that the republicans fear about al gores suggestions?
is it just the money? do they think he's a liar whos trying to screw the whole country and the world with a bunch of meaningless facts, figures and science??

I know everyone in Washington has an agenda but with science backing him up I have trouble believing the guy is completely politically motivated.
 

·
Grey Squirrel
Joined
·
22,780 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Lets hope for the good of the world ponch hasnt either.

Yeah, you're right...If I spawn there'll just be a few more people in the world looking at Canadians and shaking their heads. :rolleyes:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,157 Posts
I just have trouble with the big resistance to telling companies to clean up their ****.
Tell me who supports repealing any parts of current pollution control and abatement laws that we currently have on the books in the US? Do you have any idea how much US companies spend on compying with environmental laws and regulations promulgated by federal, state, and local governments?

I don't believe there's any serious disagreement that the earth is currently undergoing a warming trend. The question is centered on what's causing it, and if there is anything we can do about it.

It appears that most liberals believe that the vast majority of that warming is caused by man's effect on the atmosphere, and that radical changes in the way we conduct our lives is the best way to eradicate that threat. On the other hand, most conservatives believe that it is a natural phenomena, and there's nothing (or very little) we can do about it.

The problem is that the science isn't as clear as either side would have you believe. There are committed scientists that believe that the current warming trend is primarily a result of man's activities. Those scientists and their theories are widely quoted and discussed in the mainstream media. However, there is also a significant and equally qualified and committed group of scientists that don't believe that the current warming trend can be attributed to man's activities.

I personally am not convinced that the politicians that promote dramatic new taxes, rules, regulations, and other changes are on the right track. The science is too uncertain to make any coherent policy proscriptions, yet there appears to be a certain inertia associated with these proscriptions (ie, increase fuel taxes such that a gallon of gas is $5 or $6 per gallon).

However, there isn't a lot of discussion about the effects of such a change. If gas went from $3.50/gallon to $6/gal over a short period, there would be significant and serious economic consequences that NO ONE can predict. Do you really want to do that (especially knowing that the extra taxes are just going to the politicians to spend as they want - I shudder to consider it!).

07-Z51 said:
OK, lets say we take al gore at his word and it turns out he was wrong. Big companys worldwide would, by law, pollute less and we would invest money on improving on our alternative fuel sources and conservation. Plus creating thousands of jobs in the process.WHATS THE HARM IN THAT???
The harm is that you've now legislated a particular set of extensive capital expenditures by American and European companies to change their carbon footprint while NOT requiring the Chinese or the Indians to perform similar investments.

Companies are not equipped to make unlimited capital investments, and when regulatory expenses are sucking up capital, then capital is NOT invested in improving current and future products or processes, which eventually is reflected in lower future profits, and a lack of competitiveness when compared to their overseas competitiors.

Keep in mind that China and India are EXEMPT from the Kyoto treaty, which is one of the reasons that the US Senate rejected that treaty (99-1, if I recall correctly).

Source: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/07/news/warm.php

The Chinese and Indians will ONLY become more carbon footprint sensitive when they believe it is in their economic interests to do so.

Typically, misdirected investment results in short term apparent gains, but results in long term economic setbacks (see the Internet bubble for a solid example, and imagine that magnified by government incentives).

07-Z51 said:
What is it that the republicans fear about al gores suggestions? Is it just the money? do they think he's a liar whos trying to screw the whole country and the world with a bunch of meaningless facts, figures and science??
Just because he believes he's right doesn't mean that he IS right. I think the dread comes from the demagoguery that the radical wing of the Democratic party is using to 'discuss' global warming. Basically, I consider that the knee jerk reaction that claims honest disagreement is equal to treason or corporate payoffs to be just empty rhetoric - how do you debate character assassination?

07-Z51 said:
I know everyone in Washington has an agenda but with science backing him up I have trouble believing the guy is completely politically motivated.
I don't.

The problem is that science is a lot messier than most people imagine. Typically, the evidence for things we can accurately measure, that are occurring right now, isn't crystal clear. When speaking of a significantly complex system like the atmosphere, and then looking at the all the variables that have to be put into the computer models that will predict that future atmosphere, the science drops into what us engineers like to call a SWAG - Scientific Wild Ass Guess. Al Gore has wrapped himself in the clothing of scientific certainty (kind of like the King with No Clothes), and gets upset when someone disagrees with his science, his conclusions, or his recommendations.

When I taught freshman physics, I always tried to get across to my students that science is the realm of doubt, and that religion or mythology is the realm of certainty. Therefore, when someone begins to pontificate about scientific certainty, watch out! Religion is certain (it has to be - if you are a Christian, you MUST believe in God). Science is NOT certain (is the speed of light really 186,282 miles/second, or is it something else).

Now, within that realm of doubt in science, some things are closer to certainty than others. The speed of light may not be exactly 186,282 miles/second, but it's pretty close - if an experiment resulted in c=130,000 miles/second, then the vast majority of physicists would argue that the experimental procedure or data collection had been poorly designed or collected. On the other hand, the mechanism behind the current warming trend is not well understood (no matter what Al Gore may claim). There are significant questions that must be addressed before we can have any level of scientific certainty about how much this warming trend is caused by man and how much of it may be completely natural.

We cannot organize our economy predicated on a fear that anything man does has a destructive and irreversible effect on the world. In my opinion, that is what Al Gore is asking (actually, I believe he's demanding it).

Additionally, when Robert Kennedy Jr. speaks that anyone disagreeing with his interpretation of the causes and cure for global warming is a traitor to the country, then I firmly believe he's not speaking from a scientific point, but from a purely political (and demogogic) point.

Source: http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=ZjY3ZGI0OGRiMjYxNWZmZDQ2NjkzNWZjMWQzNGE1MGU=

I apologize for the lengthy (and probably rambling) response, since I was trying to throw many different (and complicated) thoughts down in the space of a few minutes.

Steven
 
1 - 20 of 43 Posts
Top