Riots threatened! Global Warming must be STOPPED IMMEDIATELY!

[Ralph Werner]

Can you imagine ANYTHING that you can't support with quotes from the 'net?

 

Masturbation causes blindness?

[dlaing]

From Jan. 6 2006, 10:41 AM to Dec. 29 2006, 06:16 PM

 

If you really want to read all 106 pages... Global Warming thread

 

You can only read it if you're logged in.

I don't think we have read permission

Since you archived it, Google no longer picks up v11lemans.com as major source on Global Warming anymore

[Admin Jaap]

You were right. I have now changed the settings to read only.

[Ralph Werner]

For those of you with an interest in this controversy a new book is out called "Climate of Extremes".

 

It is written by an Arizona State University professor of climatology - Robert Balling - and a professor of environmental science from the University of Virginia - Patrick Michaels.

 

Prominent scientists have given the book very good reviews. It counters political hype and pseudoscience with a critical scientific look at available evidence.

 

It's not as good as "Diary of a Mad Guzzisti" but then again, nothing is!

[Steve G.]

What's wrong with a warmer planet anyways? Too warm may be uncomfortable, but too cold stings.

I don't have beachfront so I don't care. Bring it on!

[dlaing]

On a more local note, our State Climatologist, George Taylor, didn't toe the Climate Change line, and was fired, because he would get in the way of the Governor's cap and trade tax scheme.

Fact Check.

He was not fired.

The "State Climatologist" position was dissolved in 1989, but Taylor proclaimed himself to be the State Climatologist.

When challenged about it he resigned

http://www.blueoregon.com/2008/02/george-taylor-t.html

[dlaing]

Masturbation causes blindness?

To those that walk in on you.

[dlaing]

For those of you with an interest in this controversy a new book is out called "Climate of Extremes".

 

It is written by an Arizona State University professor of climatology - Robert Balling - and a professor of environmental science from the University of Virginia - Patrick Michaels.

 

Prominent scientists have given the book very good reviews. It counters political hype and pseudoscience with a critical scientific look at available evidence.

 

It's not as good as "Diary of a Mad Guzzisti" but then again, nothing is!

Looks like a good book! Ratchet should read it and come to terms with the FACT that AGW exists.

[dlaing]

Oh, OK. I'll try to "properly introduce" a website next time.

 

Here's a thought for you-

 

Water vapor is a much better greenhouse gas than CO2- it holds a lot more energy. So does Methane. But you can't tax water vapor and methane, and with the exception of cattle and human farts, you would have a hard time blaming man for the warming caused by methane.

 

Paving streets, building houses, watering golf courses and irrigating crops all cause warming. If you turn 100 acres that was grass and trees into streets and rooftops that soak up the sun's energy all day, then release it all night, you will have warming. But you can't really tax people for that. When the water evaporates out of your pool, hot tub, lawn, and around the crops we grow for food and energy, it causes warming. But you can't tax that. And you really have a tough time making money on evaporation from the oceans, lakes, and streams.

 

But you can tax fossil energy use, and say it is all in the name of reducing our carbon footprint. Stop making the nasty CO2.

 

No one is arguing that the world is getting warmer, we simply don't know the cause, and the idea that pinpointing the smallest contributor to the total of "greenhouse gases" and putting the total blame on that is silly. It is a money grab.

 

Those with the cash (or the company that sells "carbon credits") fly around in private jets spewing more crap into the air in a year than I will in a lifetime. They live in a 40,000 (yes, that's forty thousand) square foot mansion that they heat and cool to their liking, all the while telling me that I am ruining the planet if my thermostat is set at more than 68 degrees in the dead of winter. They own a token Prius, but they are driven around in a limo and I am supposed to make do with a SMART car.

 

Governments have never met a tax they didn't like, so this is a goldmine for them.

 

As I stated earlier- follow the money. The loudest shills for any cause are usually the ones that stand to gain from it.

 

I am all for saving the earth, as I live here, too. But- I want proof that something is harmful before we cripple economies and burden society to combat it. So far, the proof isn't there.

 

One last thought- I see you put a PCIII and TuneBoy on your V11. Both of those richen the fuel mixture, and thus your bike emits more CO2 and other pollutants, probably more than the regs allowed. They don't leave the factory set lean to help the power delivery, do they.

 

So, you are willing to tax and regulate the CO2 emissions of others, as long as your motorcycle is improved by increasing your own. Sort of your personal "Cap and Trade" system?

Maybe nobody is taxing the water in Oregon, but in California I pay over $50 per month for water. Maybe it is not a "tax", but it is something I pay the bloody government that allows the over-development of California.

 

I am arguing the world is getting warmer. Was that a typo you wrote above and you meant to say nobody is arguing that the world is NOT getting warmer?

 

If you look at the PCIII map for my bike you will see that in many parts of the map the fuel is leaned out to bring it to proper richness.

My goal with the Tuneboy is to make it run lean and happy, which is a bit of a balancing act of which I have not been successful, averaging worse than 35MPG, the bike has been a disappointment in that area. I really thought I was going to average over 40MPG. A BMW F800 may be in my future, or an electric bike, but for now I can't afford one as the economy sucks and I have be prepared to help out my unemployed family members.

 

I think there is more than one reason to tax Petroleum and Coal with the hope of reducing consumption.

1. reduce pollution for the sake of the environment

2. for the sake of our lungs and bodies.

3. We will always need Petroleum and Coal so, burning most of it up now will have a great negative effect on future generations ( I guess that makes me a conservative)

4. AGW ( Anthropogenic Global Warming ) is happening, and if it is happening enough to cause a significant rise in sea level, we should certainly do something about it. If we are uncertain whether or not a significant rise in sea level will occur, we should still do something, just in case. If we don't think human activity significantly increases global warming, we should still take action because of reasons 1, 2, and 3.

 

I know I would rather pay $1000 in energy tax than income tax.

Heck I already pay more to the government for water than I do to big corporations and the government for Gasoline.

 

What did you think of the last IPCC report? Hysterical fear mongering???? It is really a very sensible document. Don't buy into the right wing hysteria of tyranny knocking at the door. Hopefully a book like "Climate of Extremes" will bring a more sensible argument to the table than the propaganda that Ratchet loves to quote. The reviews look good. I hope it is good science, but it does seem to be trying to sensationalize argument for purpose of selling books, rather than present good science.

[Baldini]

What's wrong with a warmer planet anyways? Too warm may be uncomfortable, but too cold stings.

I don't have beachfront so I don't care. Bring it on!

 

When the flood displaced refugees hunt beyond the beachfront, searching for dry ground, the view may look a little different from atop the slopes of Smugsville!

 

KB

[dlaing]

3. We will always need Petroleum and Coal so, burning most of it up now will have a great negative effect on future generations ( I guess that makes me a conservative)

I forgot to accentuate the importance of number 3.

If you are TRULY concerned about the crippling of the economy, and you aren't just part of the give it to me NOW generation, reason to conserve dino fuel number 3 is extremely important, and only the most selfish should not agree.

[Guest ratchethack]

To all those hereabouts still capable of exercising logic, independent, rational thought, and sincere interest in a credibly informed analysis:

 

Like Yours Truly, you may be inclined to hold the rising tide of mindless GROUPTHINK at bay by strictly adhering to and upholding the most highly credible, legitimate Climatology extant (as opposed to drinking recycled toilet-to-tap bathwater from the well funded IPCC data sewage treatment plant, endlessly pumping out perverse designer propaganda and massively corrupt political junk science).

 

But having graduated the "full-year course" over 2 years ago, and emerging with a solid grasp of just how closed-minded someone can be whose personal development has been permanently arrested somewhere in childhood, my learning experience may be of value. We're obviously dealing here with someone entirely untrained in science at the most pedestrian level. I'm afraid this leaves him afflicted with childish naïvety, ignorance, gullibility, and subject to the irrational seductions of lemming behavior, as evidenced by the following publicly stated primitive and nonsensical childish statement, thereby rendering the entire field of science well beyond the dimmest glimmer of comprehension:

 

Truth is subjective. . .

Is it any wonder that under this perversion of the concept of "truth" that he truly believes that the last 10 years of Global Cooling was caused by Global Warming, that this "warming while cooling" was necessarily caused by man, despite the lack of any credible scientific evidence whatsoever, that spending market-crushing trillions of $'s on carbon trading will transform "Global Warming while Global Cooling" into just plain "Global Cooling", AND that all of this makes 100% logical sense?!

 

The above statement also understandably accounts for the repeatedly open abuse of such fundamental concepts as "facts", "evidence", "proof", etc., not to mention the most profound disregard for the very cornerstone of all science, OBJECTIVITY. . . Of course, Truth and Objectivity both jump out the nearest open window wherever and whenever Subjectivity trumps Objectivity -- never to return. . .

 

Please allow me to offer some guidance here from direct, "graduate-level" personal experience:

 

Wisdom is often the better part of valor.

 

But by all means -- have at it if you will!

 

. . .And if you believe that being polite in the, um. . . face of such tenaciously willful ignorance and abject mendacity is the superior, noble strategy here -- by all means (Part II)! -- give that a go. . .

 

(I started the course being polite myself, over 3 years ago -- can you imagine??)

 

I'll be sitting this one out, well upwind.

[Anthro]

This picture is in the wrong context, to me the picture clearly represents a Bank's CEO and the TAX payers money the poor animal in the background is us watching it disappearing.

 

Anthro

 

 

[badmotogoozer]

The idea of carbon credits is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard - Why should I turn off my lights when I can pay someone else to do it? Absolute lunacy for both sides of the argument.

 

I also have serious issues with Ratchet's constant "Science is absolute" beliefs. Science is more probability than fact, that's why there are far, far more scientific theories than scientific laws.

 

As for the money argument, big money can be found on both sides of the GW argument. A push at best.

 

The following is very close to how I feel on the subject, worded much better than I can do with a keyboard.

 

 

 

 

Hard to argue with a truth table. And I'm not saying another word on the subject. Argue amongst yourselves.

[gavo]

The idea of carbon credits is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard - Why should I turn off my lights when I can pay someone else to do it? Absolute lunacy for both sides of the argument.

 

I also have serious issues with Ratchet's constant "Science is absolute" beliefs. Science is more probability than fact, that's why there are far, far more scientific theories than scientific laws.

 

As for the money argument, big money can be found on both sides of the GW argument. A push at best.

 

The following is very close to how I feel on the subject, worded much better than I can do with a keyboard.

 

 

 

 

Hard to argue with a truth table. And I'm not saying another word on the subject. Argue amongst yourselves.

 

The video was great and puts forward very logical arguments ,but some people just can't see past their point of view hey maybe it was masterbation