DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Global warming

**Heliosprime** · 02-02-2007, 06:42 PM

That is certainly the most uninformed and misleading post ive read today.....

Andrew

no I'd say he is making a point that may allude you....this has become politicized ..and I think you would agree from either side, where politics go uninformed lemmings follow....IS there a preponderance of evidence that global warming over the last say, 100 years can be attributed to man?

yes no and pick'em..the argument from what I can see is: both basically agree the planet goes through its own natural upheavals ( we know it does that an established fact)...the debate then breaks down too; are WE egging it on....my opinion? Certainly we are. Introducing manmade contaminates in the air will certainly affect it, I agree BUT how much of the supposed ( see; battle of the computer models) future effects ( if we buy them ) contaminates will aversely effect us? Or how will it will occur (see ; battling computer models)?

It appears and I have just read the entire UN paper closely, no one anywhere asks or delineates what the effect of the natural recovery effects of the planet will be regards the effect of the planet to assert its own natural balance..its as if they said yea okay the middle ages we had a cold period…then it appears 1200 years later we are having a warm one…so, does mans pollution then disrupt the natural flow of this cyclical balance? And how much? These models are impossible to calculate….I don’t care how many Crays you trot put…in the end the calculations of such, re; ability to adjust have been totally discarded….why? it is a fact..it can and in the past has adjusted…there is a cycle the planet goes through..

So, okay lets hedge our bets and try to leave a small a footprint as possible, that would allow the “natural” balance to assert itself…okay cool…so whats the answer now? And how long is this planetary adjustment? We may be barking at the moon……if its takes 2-300 years a mere blink of an eye historically, why are we knee jerking ourselves into a box?

Crippling our economy while India and China go merrily along ( and Europe too as they have not met their Kyoto targets) is ridiculous…you want a treaty fine, then make everyone abide…we could remove our carbon emissions ( hey lets not bring up the fact that the main methane contributors to the atmosphere are cows but so what? ) is disingenuous.

The slack will be picked up by nations that say screw you and Kyoto..is your hate of America and Bush that strong? …so, should we just go down on a sinking ship to satisfy several of you, re: drop our emissions but don’t appear very distraught regards others? Please….the selectivity is apparent and telling…..

02-02-2007, 06:42 PM	#37
Heliosprime Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 602 Senior Member	That is certainly the most uninformed and misleading post ive read today..... Andrew no I'd say he is making a point that may allude you....this has become politicized ..and I think you would agree from either side, where politics go uninformed lemmings follow....IS there a preponderance of evidence that global warming over the last say, 100 years can be attributed to man? yes no and pick'em..the argument from what I can see is: both basically agree the planet goes through its own natural upheavals ( we know it does that an established fact)...the debate then breaks down too; are WE egging it on....my opinion? Certainly we are. Introducing manmade contaminates in the air will certainly affect it, I agree BUT how much of the supposed ( see; battle of the computer models) future effects ( if we buy them ) contaminates will aversely effect us? Or how will it will occur (see ; battling computer models)? It appears and I have just read the entire UN paper closely, no one anywhere asks or delineates what the effect of the natural recovery effects of the planet will be regards the effect of the planet to assert its own natural balance..its as if they said yea okay the middle ages we had a cold period…then it appears 1200 years later we are having a warm one…so, does mans pollution then disrupt the natural flow of this cyclical balance? And how much? These models are impossible to calculate….I don’t care how many Crays you trot put…in the end the calculations of such, re; ability to adjust have been totally discarded….why? it is a fact..it can and in the past has adjusted…there is a cycle the planet goes through.. So, okay lets hedge our bets and try to leave a small a footprint as possible, that would allow the “natural” balance to assert itself…okay cool…so whats the answer now? And how long is this planetary adjustment? We may be barking at the moon……if its takes 2-300 years a mere blink of an eye historically, why are we knee jerking ourselves into a box? Crippling our economy while India and China go merrily along ( and Europe too as they have not met their Kyoto targets) is ridiculous…you want a treaty fine, then make everyone abide…we could remove our carbon emissions ( hey lets not bring up the fact that the main methane contributors to the atmosphere are cows but so what? ) is disingenuous. The slack will be picked up by nations that say screw you and Kyoto..is your hate of America and Bush that strong? …so, should we just go down on a sinking ship to satisfy several of you, re: drop our emissions but don’t appear very distraught regards others? Please….the selectivity is apparent and telling…..
	Quote