An Inconvenient Truth *GLOBAL WARMING*

[ceasar73]

Originally Posted by 2nchokies

Haven't seen real numbers yet. As easily as you say there is a 90% probability of a given temp in 2100, I can just as easily say there is a 90% chance of a different temp in 2100. My challenge to you is to demonstrate how your 90% confidence limit came about. I suggest that you can't do this. And since you can't do this, it makes me wonder why you feel (not believe) so strongly about the catastrophe theory. Perhaps politics rather than science guides you, no?

Yeah I did do it is called statistics. Quit asking leading BS questions the methane is bad for the environment.LOL:

So far you have offered NOTHING to this debate except annoyance.

[Techunter]

Originally Posted by 2nchokies

Haven't seen real numbers yet. As easily as you say there is a 90% probability of a given temp in 2100, I can just as easily say there is a 90% chance of a different temp in 2100. My challenge to you is to demonstrate how your 90% confidence limit came about. I suggest that you can't do this. And since you can't do this, it makes me wonder why you feel (not believe) so strongly about the catastrophe theory. Perhaps politics rather than science guides you, no?

When actual, bona fide scientists with years in the field risk career-changing moves like reversing their OPINIONS on Global Warming, you gotta wonder what a "True Believer Bonehead" is putting in his rolling papers. What does he know that a trained scientist does not?

Of course, claiming expertise by virtue of absorption or osmosis through the close proximity to a degreed spouse takes the proverbial cake, Betty. I think that carbon-based bi-pod has snorted too much 9% CO2......




.

[ceasar73]

Of course, claiming expertise by virtue of absorption or osmosis through the close proximity to a degreed spouse takes the proverbial cake, Betty. I think that carbon-based bi-pod has snorted too much 9% CO2......

Wow taking stuff out of context Tech and adding another put down. You remember I brought up my wife because you said I knew nothing about the scientific community (e.g. peer reviewing, grant submittals, etc...) I am not claiming to be an expert but I do know more than the average bear.

When actual, bona fide scientists with years in the field risk career-changing moves like reversing their OPINIONS on Global Warming

One guy albeit a big one guy. And please correct me if I am wrong why is this story just coming from the National Post? If so I am positive that Allegre's quotes were manipulated.

P.S. Can we add a little more maturity to our debates? (I know I am partially to blame too )

[Barttt]

Originally Posted by ceasar73

Wow!! boy I throw some real numbers at you guys and you all freak out!!! Funny Is that because you conservatives can't come up with any numbers? I mean numbers outside conservative crap like the National Post or AIW.
Ok, ready for your next BS question or childish putdown.
I see that Ann "Nazi" Coulter is teaching all the conservatives how to be mean...it is starting to take effect!!

What real numbers, they arent real until it happens. You didnt do the calculations for the probability. If you did, show us your work, and show us all the variables involved. Numbers arent needed, its the concept. The conservatives are going to tell you that it will be 0.0 degrees warmer in 2100. We dont need numbers because we dont think it will happen, there are no calculations needed to find out that the climate wont change much.

[ceasar73]

Originally Posted by Barttt

What real numbers, they arent real until it happens. You didnt do the calculations for the probability. If you did, show us your work, and show us all the variables involved. Numbers arent needed, its the concept. The conservatives are going to tell you that it will be 0.0 degrees warmer in 2100. We dont need numbers because we dont think it will happen, there are no calculations needed to find out that the climate wont change much.

Do you think that we should do any energy conservation research (i.e. hybrids, solar power,etc...)?

[Barttt]

Yes I do, but only to save us money in the long run so we arent dependent on foreign oil. It all leads me to believe that the reason for someone to blow this out of proportion is to be able to convince the american people its time for change. Nothing does that better than a story that talks about impending doom. Im in favor of cleaner energy, cheaper energy, it could save america a lot of money in the long run, and the long run is just something that not a lot of people care about, they just want money now. We should try to be more effiecient obviously because that would be a benefit. Like if we could develop a more effiecient solar panel, that would be beneficial beyond belief. The sun will always be there. I think that is where most of our research should be done.

[ceasar73]

Originally Posted by Barttt

Yes I do, but only to save us money in the long run so we arent dependent on foreign oil. It all leads me to believe that the reason for someone to blow this out of proportion is to be able to convince the american people its time for change. Nothing does that better than a story that talks about impending doom. Im in favor of cleaner energy, cheaper energy, it could save america a lot of money in the long run, and the long run is just something that not a lot of people care about, they just want money now. We should try to be more effiecient obviously because that would be a benefit. Like if we could develop a more effiecient solar panel, that would be beneficial beyond belief. The sun will always be there. I think that is where most of our research should be done.

Good point. I think if we don't improve our efficiency oil will cost too much, and we will be behind the power curve. Then there will definitely be impending doom global war and such.

[Techunter]

Originally Posted by ceasar73

Wow taking stuff out of context Tech and adding another put down. You remember I brought up my wife because you said I knew nothing about the scientific community (e.g. peer reviewing, grant submittals, etc...) I am not claiming to be an expert but I do know more than the average bear.


One guy albeit a big one guy. And please correct me if I am wrong why is this story just coming from the National Post? If so I am positive that Allegre's quotes were manipulated.

P.S. Can we add a little more maturity to our debates? (I know I am partially to blame too )

You're at your funniest when desparate, Yogi!

Allegre's Second Thoughts(HERESY! French Socialist Recants Global Warming Belief)
Financial Times-National Post ^ | 3/2/07 | LAWRENCE SOLOMON

Claude Allegre, one of France's leading socialists and among her most celebrated scientists, was among the first to sound the alarm about the dangers of global warming.

Fifteen years ago, Dr. Allegre was among the 1500 prominent scientists who signed "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity," a highly publicized letter stressing that global warming's "potential risks are very great" and demanding a new caring ethic to stave off "spirals of environmental decline, poverty, and unrest, leading to social, economic and environmental collapse."

With a wealth of data now in, Dr. Allegre has recanted his views.

To his surprise, the many climate models and studies failed dismally in establishing a man-made cause of catastrophic global warming.

Dr. Allegre now sees global warming as over-hyped and an environmental concern of second rank.

You complain about a Canadian newspaper, this won't be covered in the liberal media here in the U.S. because it DEALT A GIANT BLOW to JUNK SCIENCE they believe in!! but what about in Europe - France in particular? It's where the story originated........ Not Canada.....
***********THEY ARE PISSED!!!!!********

ALLEGRE « SCIENTIFIQUEMENT INCORRECT »

Cette fois-ci, dans une chronique de l’hebdomadaire l’Express, il vient de s’attaquer au lobby de l’écologiquement correct. Le discours écologiquement correct est connu : la planète se réchauffe, cela s’explique par les rejets de CO2 dus à l’activité industrielle polluante des grands Etats capitalistes. La solution est toute trouvée : il faut une intervention étatique ou mieux encore supra étatique pour régler le problème grâce à des mesures drastiques avancées par l’écologie politique. L’écologie, on le sait, est devenue la bouée de sauvetage des anciens marxistes en mal de reconversion, au même titre, cela va ensemble, que des altermondialistes.......

I think the Socialists are PISSED OFF at ALLEGRE!!!!

Translated:
Allegre “SCIENTIFICALLY INCORRECT”

This time, in a chronicle of the weekly magazine the Express train, it comes to attack the lobby of ecologically correct. The ecologically correct speech is known: the planet is heated, that is explained by the CO2 discharges due to the polluting industrial activity of the great capitalist States. The solution is very found: one needs an official intervention or still supra official to better regulate the problem thanks to the drastic measurements advanced by political ecology. Ecology, one knows it, became the life buoy of the former Marxists in evil of reconversion, on the same basis, that goes together, as of the altermondialists........

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

Commentaire de Claude ALLEGRE : « La science avance parce que certains refusent de penser comme la majorité ».

........Nous ne sommes pas des scientifiques, du moins dans cette spécialité. Il ne nous appartient pas de trancher. Mais la violence des réactions aux propos de Claude ALLEGRE, dont la réputation de chercheur sérieux n’est plus à faire, en dit long sur les enjeux politiques qui sous-tendent ce débat. Car il y a débat. Et c’est ce que ne supportent pas les membres de la secte écologique : on n’a pas le droit de remettre en cause les dogmes, surtout lorsqu’ils débouchent sur la nécessité d’une politique interventionniste. Nous revoilà revenus au temps glorieux du marxisme, présenté comme le « socialisme scientifique ». Horizon indépassable de l’humanité…Gérard BRAMOULLE avait raison de dénoncer « la peste verte ».

Translated:
Claude Allegre: “Science advances because some refuse to think like the majority”.

.......We are not scientists, at least in this speciality. It does not rest with to us to slice. But the violence of the reactions to the matter of Claude Allegre, whose reputation of serious researcher is not any more to make, in known as length on the political stakes which underlie this debate. Because there is debate. And it is what the members of the ecological sect do not support: there is not the right to call into question the dogmas, especially when they lead to the need for a policy interventionist. Us revoilà returned at the glorious time of the Marxism, presented like the “scientific socialism”. Horizon indépassable of humanity… Gerard BRAMOULLE was right to denounce “the green plague”.

******GLOBAL WARMING IS ALL ABOUT SOCIALIST CONTROL.******
Too bad socialists and their politics will kill serious debate, however, Alternative fuels and energy sources will be invented regardless if some Political Jackass thinks it can't happen unless He is in charge.



.

[Techunter]

******GLOBAL WARMING IS ALL ABOUT SOCIALIST CONTROL.******
Too bad socialists and their politics will kill serious debate, however, Alternative fuels and energy sources will be invented regardless if some Political Jackass thinks it can't happen unless He is in charge.



.

[Barttt]

Originally Posted by ceasar73

Good point. I think if we don't improve our efficiency oil will cost too much, and we will be behind the power curve. Then there will definitely be impending doom global war and such.

It just seems that there are other rising powers in the world, we need to be more self sufficient. It seems like we've been going downhill, I think that is the real problem we should be worrying about. People should start to see that.