environmentalist want skeptics of Global Warming behind bars

[lastone]

There will be more money made (and spent) if it IS GLOBAL WARMING CAUSED BY MAN and therefore big corporate money is behind such a determination.

Big money gets it way in America, so there will be the required banter back and forth and then the verdict will be set down in law. Go greeen. Make money. Save the Earth (or not). You will have no choice on the matter.

my 2¢

[Arp2]

Didn't read your whole post Arp,....

Ah....more proof positive that the most "open-minded" are actually the most closed-minded of all....

...just caught the evolution violates Newton's law. It does not. If you think it does, you either misunderstand Newton or evolution.

Neither. It does. Any hypothesis or theory that violates a law is thrown out every time.....except in this area, for some reason.....

[fearpeddler]

thats because this area knows deep down inside that 75% of the law is BS, I personally think its around 90% BS...

[Bob Campbell]

too dumb to delete.

[Bob Campbell]

Actually didn't read all the post because I had to get to the dinner table(yes, I turned in my man card years ago). Evolution violates no laws of Physics. Sorry dude, you'll have to show the proof on that one. By the way, relativity at first glance also seems to violate Newton's Laws, but merely refines them.
Quick hitter, "disastrous for millions". I'm just guessing, but if you put New York, DC, London, Hong Kong, and other major coastal cities under, say 3 feet of water, I would call it disastrous. I don't think it takes Nostradamus to figure that out.
One more. If you don't believe in evolution, you also don't believe the space shuttle is orbiting right now. Nor do you believe we've been to the moon. Or in satellite radio. They all operate under the same basic principles.
Consensus is not science. But science IS consensus.

[Dave Allen]

Posting it twice means its REALLY important.


Now, back to the beer and boobs.

[Bob Campbell]

Posting it twice means I am a simple moron who can't figure out newfangled mOchinery.

[cgarison]

[Lurking]

Not posting after I threw turds the last time.

[Dr. Whiplash]

Didn't read your whole post Arp,....

Ah....more proof positive that the most "open-minded" are actually the most closed-minded of all....

How does choosing not to read a lengthy diatribe, regarding a subject on which nobody really knows all the answers, makes one closed-minded?

[Hoosier Daddy]

Didn't read your whole post Arp,....

Ah....more proof positive that the most "open-minded" are actually the most closed-minded of all....

How does choosing not to read a lengthy diatribe, regarding a subject on which nobody really knows all the answers, makes one closed-minded?

Because you're not agreeing with Arp.

[Arp2]

How does choosing not to read a lengthy diatribe, regarding a subject on which nobody really knows all the answers, makes one closed-minded?

It wasn't a "lengthy diatribe." It was a transcript of "The Father Of Climatology," the first to suggest the possibility of human-caused warming 40 years ago, now saying (in convenient, bullet-point form):

-- it's all crap
-- consensus has nothing to do with scientific truth
-- he knows firsthand that anything can be made to appear to be a cause of anything else
-- water vapor and solar output have from about 800-10,000 times the effect of carbon dioxide
-- there are not enough weather stations to measure the global climate now, let alone in the past to have any idea what it really was then
-- the earth's warmest times were long before humans were on it.
-- evidence points to an ice age, not warming

I also quoted a financial forecaster in a liberal magazine saying that "alternative energy" is a new bubble that is going to produce an even newer bubble in "alternative energy infrastructure;" these new bubbles are going to create trillions and trillions of dollars in "fictitious" and "speculative" wealth for Gore- and cause-connected friends before crashing for investors.

I pointed out that the Sierra Club and others have changed their term to "climate chaos" now that significant parts of both the northern and southern hemispheres have become frozen tundras within just a year or two and Antarctica's temp has dropped a shocking 4 degrees in not even a decade. If "environmentalists" ultimate goal were really "stopping global warming," they would declare victory; rather, they've changed their language and claimed goal again, revealing that their real goal has nothing to do with the environment and that their real goal has not yet been met.

[Bob Campbell]

And still Arp refuses to answer the question that is my entire point:
Either we are warming or we are not. If we are, we should try to do whatever we can to alleviate its effects. If not, lucky us. If it's warming and we don't do ANYTHING, we're fucked. We may be fucked anyway, but, darn, shouldn't we try?
It's a win win situation for us economically, creating thousands of jobs and injecting millions of dollars into the economy.

[Arp2]

And still Arp refuses to answer the question that is my entire point:

I have answered and refuted these over and over. You really should read the posts.

Either we are warming or we are not.

We are not. Evidence actually suggests, if anything, rapid cooling.

If we are, we should try to do whatever we can to alleviate its effects.

False. No leftist anywhere in the world today or in its history believes or has believed that "we" should do "whatever we can" to honor and preserve life; therefore, we know that they really have some other end in mind, an end that no one would voluntarily choose and an end that requires public lies to get done.

If it's warming and we don't do ANYTHING, we're fucked.

Again....
A....False. You don't know how things are "supposed" to be....if it's warming, we could be returning to "normal."
B....We can't do anything. We are tiny and insignificant. We have not brought about and cannot bring about any significant change in one direction or the other....even "The Father Of Climatology" -- the first to propose human-caused warming -- now knows that and says so.
C....If, as you claim, you believe in evolution and "survival of the fittest," then we will adapt and evolve. Or die. "Natural" and no big deal either way, as far as I'm concerned.

We may be fucked anyway, but, darn, shouldn't we try?

If you want to voluntarily cede all your freedoms, liberties, rights, power, and treasure to people who are pulling a scam and know it, you voluntarily go right ahead.

It's a win win situation for us economically, creating thousands of jobs and injecting millions of dollars into the economy.

False in every way. Every part of that statement is false. More than that, really -- it's a bold-faced lie. Money and jobs do not just "magically appear" out of nowhere. "Injecting millions of dollars into the economy" means either printing money where no actual value exists (truly hyperinflationary) or stealing it at gunpoint from those who've earned it and don't want to give it to you.

It is a rapid destroyer of jobs and wealth, and nobody wins except for the first investors -- the original scammers. It is truly "lose-lose" in every worst way imaginable.

[Arp2]

Evolution violates no laws of Physics.

Yes, it absolutely does.....it violates The Second Law Of Thermodynamics.

(By the way, I incorrectly said "Newton's Second" earlier.)

The Second Law ("Entropy") states that, in any system, the movement and trend is always toward decay and disorder unless external, directed forces are applied. All matter, energy, systems, and societies evolve (heh!) toward a state of inert uniformity and steady, inevitable deterioration.

Interestingly (though not surprisingly), some "scientists," realizing that hypotheses and theories that violate a scientific law must be thrown out, have been making desperate attempts to modify The Second Law Of Thermodynamics in order to allow "evolution" to continue to be a "theory." However, even the most casual reader of those arguments will notice a circular reasoning that utterly collapses the whole attempt -- all begin with the assumption that life exists because evolution happened and, thus, that life could add specific directed energy to systems to bring about...evolution.

In other words, evolution produced the life which enabled evolution to happen in the first place and, thus, does not violate The Second Law because the life was there to direct the energy into the system to produce life through evolution.

Huh?????

Consensus is not science. But science IS consensus.

No......it's not.

Science is demonstrable by anyone and everyone regardless of opinions or beliefs. Anything not demonstrable is not "science."

[AmpedNow]

False in every way. Every part of that statement is false. More than that, really -- it's a bold-faced lie. Money and jobs do not just "magically appear" out of nowhere. "Injecting millions of dollars into the economy" means either printing money where no actual value exists (truly hyperinflationary) or stealing it at gunpoint from those who've earned it and don't want to give it to you.

It is a rapid destroyer of jobs and wealth, and nobody wins except for the first investors -- the original scammers. It is truly "lose-lose" in every worst way imaginable.

So, this is an excuse to leave things as they are and remained chained to foreign oil while the industry racks in profit margins unthinkable only a few years ago?

I don't buy that for a minute.

Take California for example... I like how they keep big industry in check by telling them to clean up their act or else. If "big gubmint" doesn't keep these clowns in check for the greater good, then who will?

Do you honestly think the air quality in southern California would have been improved as much as it has had "big gubmint" not required smaller engines, catalytic converters, charcoal canisters, etc on new vehicles? What incentive is there for corporations to spend shareholder profits for the greater good unless it is mandated by a theoretically neutral body?

This is why the new CAFE standards are a great thing. It makes Detroit pull their collective heads out of their asses and get cracking on developing new technologies. Otherwise, we'd all still be driving around big honking Impalas that get 6 miles per gallon with gas well over $4.00 due to demand.

Notice also that it's not the Japanese auto companies complaining about the new standards... It's Detroit. Why?

I also love the logic that anyone who dares to innovate and develop a new technology that might help us be less dependent on oil is a "scammer"...

How much oil stock do you own?

[The People's DJ]

Locked. Cause I'm tired of the pissing match going on.

Arp, you believe what you want.
Bob, do the same

Both of you.

SHUT THE FUCK UP!