doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com OT - Talk about "Global Warming"

It is fear of the unknown that they trade upon, Jack. Same as your local house of worship no matter the icon posted over the door. What if our theory is true? The stakes are too high to ignore, etc.

Where I live, 12,000 years ago there were 2 MILES of ice overhead. Geology is one of the few sciences with actual historic evidence in hand. We know this to be a fact. "Global Warming" has been in operation at least for that long here, and nobody asserts that pre-industrial revolution humans could have had any impact.

The dinosaurs lived on a tropical Earth for tens of millions of years.

This is the most successful con to come down the pike since Big Bang.

If the UN/WHO has an opinion on just about any subject, you can be assured it's on the wrong side of the truth.

All you need to do is follow the money.

As with AGW, the swine flu is a good example. The WHO tried to scare the hell out of everyone while those involved made a ton of money selling the "cure".

Now they are telling me my kid needs a $100 meningitis shot. ?WHO? is making the money in this latest scam.

I heard they took the word "gullible" out of the dictionary and replaced it with a sitting duck that just happens to be closely related to the golden goose.

While the cause of climate change is debated, no one doubts that the climate is changing, become warmer, and will continue to do so in the future.

From my perspective of nearly 80 years, from working in the Arctic particularly, temperatures are accelerating at a significant and alarming rate.

At my age. nothing scares hell out of me. I'm not going to be around to experience climate change's worst effects. Mitigating those effects, however, makes sense to me.

An analogy perhaps is our members' obligations to stop increasing erosion of what we perceive as rights or significant elements of our culture. To do nothing is to surrender and render defeat.

I'm inclined to agree with SGJ on the "instrumentalities" of religion, but, as for those pesky ice ages, think we should save a bit of fossil fuel to burn a hole or two in the ozone. But I don't want to be a worrywort particularly since I've already outlived Carlin.

jack

Jaycee - thanks for that link. I look forward to listening to it in its entirey. That is the kind of rational debate we need on this issue, not accusations that one side or the other is engaged in hoaxes or religion.

What seems prudent to some may seem like scare tactics to others. Were the arguments in support of invading Iraq scare tactics by those seeking increase their power and profits or a defensible case for risk mitigation? You can have a pretty animated debate on that point.

It is informative to me to look at how companies are responding to this issue. Holcim and Lafarge are two of the largest cement manufacturers in the world, and cement manufacturing is one largest industrial sources of carbon dioxide. These companies are spending many millions of dollars to reduce their direct and indirect carbon emissions, and they are doing so not because they have bought into some religion. Their institutional shareholders would not tolerate those kind expenditures without a defensible business reason to do so.

50+ years ago, it was common practice to land-dispose industrial wastes. There was no scientific basis to confirm whether these wastes would come into contact with the groundwater and if it did what would happen to people drinking the contaminated groundwater. Ultimately, we ended up with Superfund and whole new industries - environmental engineering and toxicology - had to created to deal with the problem. It has been a monsterously inefficient cleanup process, and will cost taxpayers and shareholders hundreds of billions of dollars before it is completed. God save us all if we end up taking a similar approach to human carbon emissions. If we do, tell your grandchildren to become environmental attorneys, because there is going to be a whole lot of litigating going on for a long time!

So the Big Bank theory is a hoax? Hmm. Who knew. So what is the current scientific (as opposed to mythical) theory about the origin of the universe? I missed the update.

I dunno much about the big bank theory except the present one & can't say that I'm real impressed. I'd personally like to see the liquidity figures raised well above their present levels & also see losses recognised and taken in a reasonable time frame rather than set aside as they have been, particularly in the commercial sector. Its yet another 800 pound gorilla, ya know.

As to the big bang theory, I would only ask which one. One might even assert that this one is the seventh, but I could be wrong, as Russ always said.

Does anyone think desertification is a hoax or Henny-Penny alarmism? Anyone think there's not an Antarctic area of ozone depletion which grows and shrinks and has moved over the southern tip of one inhabited continent to include South Georgia and, I hear at some time in the not too distant past, Chile? Anyone think rising sea levels won't remodel the eastern coast of North America? Will I be able to justify "data's not all in" skepticism when the Piedmont "heights" my patch is located on is an island? Hypothesis can become hyperthesis in a hurry, baby! You can have all the pieces of the puzzle and choose not to put them together.

jack

Yes, Big Bang has been falsified many times over.

It still hangs on because the scientific community makes it's living on it. Any objections are dealt with by adding an additional variable paramater.

Since you asked, start here:

http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp

Seek the works of Hilton Ratcliffe, Halton Arp, and Tom VanFlandern. Avoid Stephen Hawking, unless you think mathematics IS reality.