| Author | Message | ||
     Aesquire |
Other than the U.N. plan to take my money, what study can Jimidan cite? It is settled. ( unlike real science, which NEVER is ) He has no real argument. He switched to denigrate those who disagree with him. That means, in the real world, ( outside his mind ) that he lost the "debate" and now wants to argue something else. Name ONE time the IPCC or the Union of Concerned Scientist's have actually done science & not money politics. Really, I'm curious if I missed a miracle. ( I have plenty of Purina Troll chow. ) Oh, I lost track, are you for or against tariffs on tires from Communist China? (Message edited by aesquire on November 13, 2009) | ||
| Sifo |
Some funny things about the UN report and their "settled science". They openly admit that CO2 will not provide the warming that has been seen during the 80's & 90's. They say that the warming comes from a strong positive feedback from water vapor. The UN report also has a section where they rank how well we understand various aspects of climate science. At the bottom of the list with very little scientific understanding is water vapor. It's great to know that the report that Jimidan cites as proof of the science being settled actually admits that the keystone to the entire theory is something that we know very little about. So with the scientific knowledge that water vapor provides a strong positive feed back that will spiral into runaway warming we can look back into history for further understanding. Science tells us that a long time ago when T-rex was romping around CO2 levels were in fact much higher than today's levels. For some reason we didn't have runaway global warming though. The logical answer must be that water vapor was not available. Yes it's true, the IPCC has proven that the oceans of the world did not exist back then. The oceans are a relatively new thing in our scientific world. With this new knowledge I will from here forward refer to believers in AGW as "New Oceaners". Yep, Jimidan is a New Oceaner. Now that we have science settled what about the tire situation going on across the new ocean. Is it wrong what China is doing? How is it different to what BO is doing with health care on this side of the new ocean. | ||
| Jimidan |
Let's debate a REAL issue... Why is Obama dithering? See my new post under the Quick Board. | ||
| Sifo |
I don't debate with new oceaners. | ||
| Jimidan |
My Momma always told me not to argue about politics and religion. Your global warming comments are like religious beliefs...and I cannot tell you that you do not believe something, only that the preponderance of science does not support those beliefs. Actually, I am not sure why we keep calling China Communist...they pay less of a % of income tax than we do now...the highest bracket is 23%. There are several American based (if that means anything anymore since their stock is publicly traded on the stock exchanges, so anybody can buy it) companies open for bidness in China. Walmart accounts for about 12% of our total sales, and it is full of Chinese products. Without China's loans, there would have been no Iraq of Afghan wars. In fact, without China's money, where would we be? We have to walk softly or China may call in its loans and break our country. There is no compario between the much needed health care reform in our country and what China is doing with tires. Really! | ||
| Sifo |
Your global warming comments are like religious beliefs...and I cannot tell you that you do not believe something, only that the preponderance of science does not support those beliefs. I just pointed out what it says in the new oceaners bible provided by the UN. You choose not to respond to the facts though. It's your bible, not mine. | ||
| Court |
Global warming and the boogey man are supported by equal amounts of evidence. | ||
| Sifo |
Court, I can see the edge of the earth from my house!  | ||
| Jimidan |
Global warming and the boogey man are supported by equal amounts of evidence. While your religious beliefs are your business, let's just say that Johnny Johnson, James Baker and Leadbelly were all established Boogiemen. While you write a mean book (of which I have a copy), let's face it...your one-liner proclamations haven't exactly carried much validity. Like the time that you said on this forum that the dissolving of BRAG was a good thing for Buell riders, as it would provide more services for ALL Buellers and not just those in the BRAG club. Nothing could have been further from the truth. The dissolution of BRAG ended Buell's intimate relationship with its hardcore enthusiasts...period. There simply were no more rides or activities that came anywhere close to those sponsored events. Owning a Buell became a much less enjoyable experience after they pulled the plug on BRAG...take it from several former BRAG members (which you were not a participating member, BTW...so how would you know?). And now you are also telling us that the killing of the Buell Co. is also a good thing, where HD has set it up so that nobody can even buy it or continue any of the patents which it holds and apparently will take to the grave with it. That is a good thing? And you are supposed to have insider info about this stuff. So, why should we believe your unsubstantiated one-liner about global warming, when you have no insider info about it? Talk is cheap, especially when it is just a one liner that didn't even require much thought. | ||
| Jimidan |
sifo, you have presented no facts to respond to. | ||
| Jimidan |
Other than the U.N. plan to take my money, what study can Jimidan cite? Not study, a compilation of thousands of studies. Denier. | ||
| Sifo |
No I haven't presented any facts. I've simply stated what is in the new oceaners bible, UN edition. Time to go ride before it start snowing. | ||
| Court |
>>>And you are supposed to have insider info about this stuff. No. I am not supposed to. I've presented more evidence in one line than has been presented to support global warming. You should thank me for efficient use of your time. Let me guess . . you think Wall Street caused the banking crisis too? | ||
| Cyclonedon |
Obama's tire import tax killing business for tires that is certainly a concern to think that we might be putting some Chinese workers out of a job! I hope they get unemployment benefits! | ||
| Aesquire |
It may be just the first visible shot in a new trade war. I think locally enough that I would prefer my fellow citizens to have good paying jobs, say, making tires, than someone, somewhere else who's productivity is lower, pollution far greater, and who's pay contributes nothing to MY tax base & MY societies well being. Not militantly, but a preference based on enlightened self interest. Not wanting to starve any Chinese peasants, mind you. Have no desire to have them die from chemical's dumped on them by an uncaring company either. It's still Communist China. Many Chinese companies are owned by local or regional political leaders, at least in part. It's a strange system, that inherits the very worst of the corruption and greed from the established regimes, and robber baron greed of the harvard MBA. ( I'm prejudiced about bean counters without souls. See H-D & Buell ) Try this scenario. Emboldened by the change in U.S. leadership, and believing they see weakness, in this admin, China uses it's monetary leverage, and the excuse of a trade war to blackmail us. Perhaps to take Taiwan, or force us to back off from responding to provocation from N. Korea? Would this tire tariff, be a trigger? I agree that the socialized medicine push and the chinese tire tax have little in common besides they are actions of this administration. My opinion of the ideology's involved are not relevant to the history of tariffs and protectionist actions in the past, or their results in the future. Jimidan's speculation about debt fueled power plays may be accurate. Give up on your propaganda on global warming. You already tossed that one off when you went to character comments & not facts or sources. | ||
| Macdiver |
I have not read this entire thread. I have scanned most of it. I'm not sure how it got onto global warming but that seems to be one of the debates going on. My question is What does it matter if global warming has been proven or not? The "solutions" can only improve our lives and the world around us whether global warming is occurring or not. Reduced CO2 and other emissions help us breathe easier. Not cutting down old growth rain forrest and replanting forrests provides habitat for different creatures while also removing CO2. These are good things regardless. Why are people adverse to reducing pollution of all kinds and saving natural areas? Should we just mow it all down and pave it? I just don't understand the downsides. | ||
| Sifo |
My question is What does it matter if global warming has been proven or not? The "solutions" can only improve our lives and the world around us whether global warming is occurring or not. Reduced CO2 and other emissions help us breathe easier. Here's some facts that you may choose to accept or ignore. 1) CO2 caused warming is not proven. 2) They are targeting CO2 as a pollutant at a cost of trillions of dollars. 3) CO2 at the levels being discussed has zero effect on your ability to breath. 4) By targeting CO2 you ignore real pollutants. 5) Higher CO2 levels can actually be beneficial to some plants & crops. So basically if you expect to spend trillions on a program with no proven benefits, I expect it to be based on a theory that will at least coincide with what has been happening in the environment for the past decade. CO2 theory fails that test. | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
Mac, you're thinking like a rational person. However, the politicians don't. It's about control not about improving the environment. | ||
| Aesquire |
Certainly conservation of resources is wise. Pollution is bad, here's what they have in China. http://www.chinahush.com/2009/10/21/amazing-pictur es-pollution-in-china/ The above may be a reason to have the tire tariff. ( I don't disagree with everything Obama does, just those I think bad ) Heck, I'm all for fossil fuel alternatives, since that is a dwindling resource, if not today at least in the near future. But making ethanol from food is insane, ( garbage yes, corn, no ) and the cost per gallon must be cheaper than gasoline to work. As long as we are free to make that choice, which applies directly to foreign trade, tariffs, and the thread subject. global warming as it is presented to you on tv, & by the IPCC, Al Gore, etc. is a con to take your money with NO environmental benefits to "warming". ( a condition that does not actually exist today, though it did warm up a tiny bit 10 years ago. See Variable star in your astronomy book ) Even the basis for the greenie movement is in error. They want to impoverish the world because SUV's and private jets "use up the worlds precious resources". ( note AL Gore uses SUV's and private jets far more than You or I do ) Ignoring that fact ( see pics above ) that poverty creates far more harmful pollution than wealth does. If you can afford to make something cleaner, and live in a free society, the pollution gets cleaned up. See America. ( bitching gets done, gets heard & responded to, usually with positive action ) If you are a nation of greedy kleptocrats who keep poor people in massive oppression and care nothing for their welfare, since, after all, you have a billion more to burn up, you get rivers that are open sewers like nothing seen in the West. See Russia, Iron Curtain, China, etc. ( bitching gets done, gets heard and responded to usually with oppression & murder ) | ||
| Gregtonn |
"5) Higher CO2 levels can actually be beneficial to some plants & crops." Make that all plants and crops. I haven't read this entire thread so please forgive me if I am repeating something. For those who weren't paying attention in junior high science class; Animals take in oxygen and exhale CO2, plants take in CO2 and release oxygen. Atmospheric CO2 level in the past have been 20 times greater than they are now and the earth survived just fine, thank you. Anyone who is buying into the CO2 scare is an idiot. If that offends you you need to educate yourself with some real facts. G | ||
| Sifo |
"5) Higher CO2 levels can actually be beneficial to some plants & crops." Make that all plants and crops. I didn't want to overstate it. While it's been proven to be fact that some plants respond well to higher levels of CO2, it would be a stretch to claim that all plants will respond the same. This doesn't mean that any plants will do better with lower levels of CO2. It's just that there is a point where a plant no longer responds positively to added CO2. As far at temperature goes, how is it that we are always told that we will face catastrophe if the climate warms and virtually the same catastrophe if the climate cools. Are we really foolish enough to believe that we somehow live in a climate that is exactly perfect for life on the Earth? Can someone please explain how this isn't a form of religious belief. | ||
| Sifo |
Jimidan Posted on Tuesday, November 10, 2009 - 04:51 pm: However, the peer-reviewed scientific journals are not interested in public perceptions of what is "balanced". Thus, there has not been a single peer-reviewed study that refutes human caused global warming. Why? Because there are NONE. A rather timely post on Watts Up With That.
Could be Jimidan isn't quite up to speed. | ||
| Sifo |
Earth's heat content has been increasing at a rate of 6 x 1021 Joules per year Where did this come from? I can't find it in either link that you provided. It isn't even close to anything that I can find. And I was hoping Jimidan could answer where he got his info on ocean warming. He wouldn't even do that much. | ||
| Blake |
Same old leftist lies and propaganda that some inexplicably are eager to swallow and help propagate. I agree, they are idiots. | ||
| Jimidan |
Earth's heat content has been increasing at a rate of 6 x 1021 Joules per year Where did this come from? I can't find it in either link that you provided. It isn't even close to anything that I can find. And I was hoping Jimidan could answer where he got his info on ocean warming. He wouldn't even do that much. Hold your horses, I have other stuff to do besides arguing with you about this. Besides, you have given me 450 so-called skeptics peer-reviewed papers that I have never even heard of, and I am checking these out. Let me just say that the photo on Watt's site with the very nice leather bindings does not make the listed papers any more authentic. I would just say at this point that because nobody in the scientific community has ever addressed these papers does not bode well for their validity...but I do not know yet. I will get back when I find something out. And Blake, you are getting about as bad as Court with your one-liner dismissals that blow off arguments as leftist lies and propaganda. Why do you have to make this into a political argument, when there is plenty of science to go around. Your reply was intellectually lazy...you are a scientist fercrissakes, with experience in thermodynamics, and that is the best you can do? The source was: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7198/ab s/nature07080.html | ||
| Jimidan |
"5) Higher CO2 levels can actually be beneficial to some plants & crops." Make that all plants and crops. I haven't read this entire thread so please forgive me if I am repeating something. For those who weren't paying attention in junior high science class; Animals take in oxygen and exhale CO2, plants take in CO2 and release oxygen. Atmospheric CO2 level in the past have been 20 times greater than they are now and the earth survived just fine, thank you. The Earth is aways going to survive just fine, but our life on it depends on climatic conditions being in a narrow range before it starts getting ugly for us. It isn't going to matter if the plants are booming if the great plains are a desert and the coastal lands and wet lands are inundated with sea water. The issue is that yeah, there have been periods when the CO2 have been much higher, but not lately, and it took thousands of years to change. We are witnessing significant change in less than one hundred, and the fact is we have no idea exactly what kind of impacts that will have (they certainly aren't addressing these concerns in junior high science class). The best estimates by the leading scientists all kinda suck though. | ||
| M2me |
Fight the good fight, Jimidan!  I've given up debating with these guys. If you think differently than they do, you will be called a moron, a liar, an idiot. You will be viciously attacked personally. You will be accused of selling your own beloved mother. Their style of debate sickens me. They have zero interest in fact-based debate. Debating these people is a waste of my time and intelligence. | ||
| Aesquire |
Actually, when Jimidan goes from assertions from the IPCC ( a political org. with a history of untruth ) direct to attacks on intelligence & character, he has already conceded he has no rational argument & now is playing by "rules for radicals". He already lost by being a jerk about it. Why should he have any credibility when he calls us flat earthers? The Earth is not flat, it's an oblate spheroid. Al Gore is richer for his con. We are heading for an Ice age. That IS settled. As to this thread,...Jimidan may have valid points, and I'm interested in his opinion on how good or bad an idea possibly starting a trade war with China is. I never accused anyone of selling their mother. (Message edited by aesquire on November 17, 2009) | ||
| Benm2 |
Why does global warming deserve to be included in this sort of debate? Considering both sides, I'm inclined to believe neither: in effect, there are forces at work that can at any time change the climate. The current best science can offer is a weather forecast accurate for roughly 12 hours. There are plenty of environmental & humanitarian issues where "THE LEFT" could refocus energy, such as NOX or particulate emissions from power plants. There is no lack of science regarding the effects of NOX & acid rain. In London air pollution is terrible, even with Euro emissions standards. Or how about the exceeding heavy usage of nitrate fertilizers, and the corresponding poisoning of groundwater? If world impact is important, how about improving Chinese working conditions? How about discarded pharmaceuticals working their way through major manufacturers treatment systems & getting into groundwater? Or even that old standard, world hunger? There are STILL people starving in Africa, after all. Trade war with China? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambrose evans_pritchard/6575883/China-has-now-become-the-b iggest-risk-to-the-world-economy.html Bring it on. The fixing of the Chinese currency to the dollar needs to end. | ||
| Reindog |
What does all this blather have to do with Chinese tire imports? |
