Global Hoax?

[Tex]

In the wake of a NASA admission that 1934 was the hottest year on record in the US (not 1998), and that 5 of the 10 hottest were prior to World War II, comes this article:

D.C. resident John Lockwood was conducting research at the Library of Congress and came across an intriguing Page 2 headline in the Nov. 2, 1922 edition of The Washington Post: "Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt."

The 1922 article, obtained by Inside the Beltway, goes on to mention "great masses of ice have now been replaced by moraines of earth and stones," and "at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared."

1922.

Man-made global warming may well turn out to be the biggest hoax ever perpetuated on the world.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/artic...ON02/108140063

[Indy Coug]

Global warming is the perfect storm of

1. Incomplete and flawed data
2. Wild and baseless extrapolation
3. Political opportunism

[UteStar]

What is ridiculous is that the democrats talk like the world is coming to an end...and republicans talk like we can continue to pollute the world and all is well. Both sides are silly and both sides go to the extremes.

No offense to you tex, but I find it interesting that you are very orthodox in your church beliefs but you show little interest in preserving the environment...I would think that people should naturally be inclined to protect this earth--have I misread your position? I understand you have strong feelings about global warming...but I never see any strong feelings from you in regards to trying to conserve and be responsible for this earth. Am I wrong in that belief?

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by UteStar

What is ridiculous is that the democrats talk like the world is coming to an end...and republicans talk like we can continue to pollute the world and all is well. Both sides are silly and both sides go to the extremes.

No offense to you tex, but I find it interesting that you are very orthodox in your church beliefs but you show little interest in preserving the environment...I would think that people should naturally be inclined to protect this earth--have I misread your position? I understand you have strong feelings about global warming...but I never see any strong feelings from you in regards to trying to conserve and be responsible for this earth. Am I wrong in that belief?

There is a serious logical disconnect here. One can simultaneously believe in being good to the environment and seeing man-made, catastrophic Global Warming as the very worst sort of junk science.

These are not mutually exclusive ideas.

[Jeff Lebowski]

The cover story for Newsweek this past week is about the small group of dedicated folks who are still in denial about global warming despite a broad global consensus among scientists and experts. And how many of the scientists who claim it is a hoax are part of think tanks funded by oil companies. It's an interesting read.

[UteStar]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

There is a serious logical disconnect here. One can simultaneously believe in being good to the environment and seeing man-made, catastrophic Global Warming as the very worst sort of junk science.

These are not mutually exclusive ideas.

No, I agree entirely. The issue that I raise is I read all the time from people who discredit global warming and then talk of little things where you can see they care less about the environment. Bring it up on cougarboard and people talk about how they waste water, drive cars that get 10mpg, etc. I know part of it is in jest, but I also think people really care very little about the environment. I thought tex was like that and maybe I am wrong.

Like I said before, you have people on one side that says global warming is very real and the world is changing...and you have people on the other side that say that global warming is a farce and as tex says 'maybe the biggest hoax ever.' Its funny how we have incomplete data and people already call it a hoax...anyway, just thinking out load.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

There is a serious logical disconnect here. One can simultaneously believe in being good to the environment and seeing man-made, catastrophic Global Warming as the very worst sort of junk science.

These are not mutually exclusive ideas.

Indeed. I love the outdoors ... camping, hiking, backpacking, rappelling. It provides needed respite from my professional life. I think we ought to protect the environment reasonably.

One of greatest disservices the media has done to the Republican party is create the myth that if you don't agree with the environmentalist wackos, you are against preserving the environment.

Originally Posted by UteStar

and you have people on the other side that say that global warming is a farce and as tex says 'maybe the biggest hoax ever.' Its funny how we have incomplete data and people already call it a hoax...anyway, just thinking out load.

It may well be. It may not be. But I refuse to send the US (and perhaps the world) into economic disarray creating taxation and regulation to stop a problem for which there is no conclusive evidence.

If you think the global warmologists are in this altruistically, think again.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

Indeed. I love the outdoors ... camping, hiking, backpacking, repelling. It provides needed respite from my professional life. I think we ought to protect the environment reasonably.

One of greatest disservices the media has done to the Republican party is create the myth that if you don't agree with the environmentalist wackos, you are against preserving the environment.



It may well be. It may not be. But I refuse to send the US (and perhaps the world) into economic disarray creating taxation and regulation to stop a problem for which there is no conclusive evidence.

If you think the global warmologists are in this altruistically, think again.

In general I agree with this discussion, but Reps are also to blame by allowing the whackos and Dems to coopt the platform, without setting forth so meaningful discussion on their own. The Reps have no meaningful protections of the environment or clean up. The problem the Reps face is anything they would propose would be rejected as not being enough by Dems. However, if Reps ever want to shed the anti enviro image, they will need some meaningful achievements in this arena.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

The cover story for Newsweek this past week is about the small group of dedicated folks who are still in denial about global warming despite a broad global consensus among scientists and experts. And how many of the scientists who claim it is a hoax are part of think tanks funded by oil companies. It's an interesting read.

Yes, it was. It was also interesting to read that same author note on her blog how the latest models predict a slowing of global warming in the coming years. She then begs people not to say "see? no big deal" because the models predict a global warming resurgence after the coming "reprieve."

It's just such a bunch of bull it really makes me chuckle.

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/labno...er-nature.aspx

[UteStar]

Originally Posted by Tex

Yes, it was. It was also interesting to read that same author note on her blog how the latest models predict a slowing of global warming in the coming years. She then begs people not to say "see? no big deal" because the models predict a global warming resurgence after the coming "reprieve."

It's just such a bunch of bull it really makes me chuckle.

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/labno...er-nature.aspx

So I am just curious...lets say in 2 years, there is a consensus that global warming is real and it is basically proven true. What will you say? I am not trying to argue, I am interested as to what your response will be. Now, the same question could be asked of those that are staunch global warming supporters as well, but I am curious as to your response.