Em, the global warming scam has nothing to do with environmental pollution.  I'm all for cleaning up toxic waste, but blaming human generated carbon dioxide for global warming is bullshit.  For some insane reason, we have allowed the crazies to convince us that we need to shut down industry, give up wood stoves, spend ridiculous money on solar and windpower fiascos, and pay a special tax for carbon credits to stay in business.  If you want to reduce your "carbon footprint" just stop breathing.

Em wrote:

You're preaching to the choir buddy.  The only problem is getting these money grubbing corporations to clean up after themselves; we're listening if you have any ideas.

My idea would be to form a huge government agency with unlimited funds and powerful regulations.  They would have ultimate control over air quality, water quality, hazardous materials, and anything they, themselves, deem to be pollution.  They could send out hoards of agents to monitor every aspect of manufacturing and fine the hell out of any perceived violation.  Oh, wait, we already have the EPA.

whosasailorthen wrote:

I'm sure that fact, like the fact that Republicans outvoted fillibustering Democrats to pass the Civil Rights Bill, will soon be expunged from history and claimed by the Democrats as something they created. Oh wait....

Don't be obtuse Sailor, southern democrats back then were what they were, we all know that story and there really isn't a need to drudge that crap up again; now those folks have become Tea Baggers.

I'm all about responsibility - it should be a personal mission but if we need enforcement on a corporate level then we had best get after it.  I don't trust these lawyers further than I can throw the lot of them and if you hadn't noticed lawyers run all of these corporation nowadays.

In reflection to Phreddy's mumbo-jumbo, {ironic} Yes, life was better when our rivers caught fire because we didn't hold people accountable.{/ironic}

I hate to say this but.....holy crap! I'm going to do it!........I agree with phreddy on this one. But just on the global warming thing. The EPA idea, not so much. (whew, ok. That wasn't too bad)

The only thing about the "green" business which makes sense to anyone is the business. There are billions of dollars being made by people who know full well that global warming/climate change or whatever they have decided to call it this week, is just a bogus claim to create even more wealth for certain people. Twenty years ago, they claimed the earth was cooling. Until there was no evidence to back them up. Now it is the opposite. I guess they think people are just too stupid to understand this type of thing, and they may well be right.

doesyourpussyhurt wrote:

Twenty years ago, they claimed the earth was cooling. Until there was no evidence to back them up. Now it is the opposite. I guess they think people are just too stupid to understand this type of thing, and they may well be right.

It is not the opposite. Only a small percentage of climatologists predicted global cooling. And we quit hearing about it (I had never heard of it until now) because the evidence predicted future warming of the planet. Not because a cabal of scientist thought they would garner more grant money by chasing the heat rather than the cold, as many conservatives seem to believe. I think many people remember the predictions of nuclear winter and the fright that caused, and remember it as predictions of global cooling.

Global Cooling- "This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community..."

Pussy wrote:

I am not saying there will be no changes in temperature on this planet. But I am saying that it is a natural process of the planet and the solar system, and not a man-created event as so many believe. By all means, conserve energy. But do it for the right reasons. The future children who may require said energy. Not because you fear a warmer planet which would be more productive overall.

Precisely how I feel about this issue.  And as for Dusty's figures showing how many studies predict global warming, I have this to say.  The proof is in the pudding.  You could have a million studies predicting an event, but if it doesn't occur, you need to stop beating the drum and take a better look at your data.

To go back to Phreddy's original post and link.  The source is The Telegraph.   Enough said about the source.  On the science, I don't claim any particular expertise on the subject.  What I have read about the IPCC report, which is the piñata that the article swings at, considers the very recent trend in global temperatures.  The trend is that the long term rate of increase has slowed over the past few years.  The increase has not stopped altogether, nor have the measurements indicated global cooling.  They indicate only that the rate of warming has slowed.  What it means for the coming years is unknown to all.  In any event, a more careful reading of the report is in order.

Edited for syntax, which I pay regularly.

Last edited by Fled (2013-09-27 18:42:08)

I'm running low on patience for all of this shit.

And, meanwhile, the earth continues not to give a shit what scientists think.

The problems with the articles posted by Baywolfe and by Dusty it that they are anecdotal.  Yes, the ice caps fluxuate, but in order to develop models which will accurately predict the climate, you need years of hard data.  The IPCC been preaching that it has that data.  Unfortunately, their models have not come close to predicting the climate for the past 15 years.  Instead of admitting they have it wrong and rebuild the models, they double down and insist they are correct regardless of the data they, themselves, have collected.

phreddy wrote:

The problems with the articles posted by Baywolfe and by Dusty it that they are anecdotal.  Yes, the ice caps fluxuate, but in order to develop models which will accurately predict the climate, you need years of hard data.  The IPCC been preaching that it has that data.  Unfortunately, their models have not come close to predicting the climate for the past 15 years.  Instead of admitting they have it wrong and rebuild the models, they double down and insist they are correct regardless of the data they, themselves, have collected.

Well made point however I shall continue to stand on my principles that everyone should clean up their own damn mess and not run away and hide behind bankruptcy laws.

That makes no sense.  They grow corn and tomatoes in the Rio Grande valley.  Anybody think it's colder there than in Kansas?

Emmeran wrote:

But don't blame me:  I don't research the news, I don't write the news.  I'm lazy as can be so I just link the news.
(isn't that called twittering or some shit these days?)

Actually, when you do it on the Web it is called being "an aggregate site."

Emmeran wrote:

George Orr wrote:

Actually, when you do it on the Web it is called being "an aggregate site."

So basically, a town gossip with adverts?

No, aggregate sites are far more contemptible.  I would never credit a town gossip who did not at least do a little cross-checking.