Doing the best I can on the Global Warming...

by Gregor 29 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Bubblie

  The earth is our home. Let's do our best to try to take care of it so we can pass it on the those we know will be here after us. We can't keep saying climate change isn't happening. Kentucky had an ice storm where the power was out for many over a week. Remember folks that is the south. It isn't supposed to get as cold down here (Tennessee) as it has been for the last few days yet it is in the twenties with wind chill in the teens. There were snow flurries here a couple of times. I just didn't expect that. The floods in other countries aren't covered by our media anymore since we are obsessed with what Britney, Madonna, and Brad & Angelina are doing. Let's get news reporters to cover the world again. Maybe, then it would sink in that the planet is in trouble for the things humans have done to it. I have started a thread about ruining the earth. Please share your ideas.

  Kit
• 

  AK - Jeff

  Thank you Coffee, for injection of logical thought into this matter of wide and speculative nature.

  Of course, the good doctor does not suggest that there is absolutely nothing to the matter of Global change. There may be something to it, only perhaps it is not what they insist we believe. His characterization of those who religiously insist on it's absolute truthfulness is interesting isn't it?

  Here too, Gregor, we have found ourselves in the midst of one of the coldest winters in history for this region. I have taken to burning the scrap cardboard created by our recycle society, instead of taking it to the recycle barrels. My reason is that with 7 weeks of sub-freezing temps, and unusually high winter precipitation to accompany, my 8 degree driveway has become difficult to climb, having been lead to believe that GCC would have made it reasonable to assume that I would no longer have to plan for plowing, salt, etc. So burning the cardboard not only creates some carbon and CO2, hopefully speeding the warming process, but provides a suitable traction-enhancer. I wonder if shredded CFL's would do the same?

  Jeff
• 

  Gregor

  Inkling, chill out. My opening statement was obviously satire. I love Polar bears and would do anything I could to help one of them if he was hungry or too warm. People who are exploiting this "Save The Earth" religion count on using the emotional reactions most people have to the idea of harm coming to wild animals. They are the cynics.
• 

  coffee_black

  Of course, the good doctor does not suggest that there is absolutely nothing to the matter of Global change. There may be something to it, only perhaps it is not what they insist we believe. His characterization of those who religiously insist on it's absolute truthfulness is interesting isn't it?

  Yes AK-Jeff... Sounds eerily familiar, doesn't it? Unfortunately there are plenty of opportunists out there to take advantage of the naive..

  Everyone is trying to market "green" products... and there isn't much to stop them. The public gets to feel good by purchasing some of these products...when in reality in many instances, they've just been sold an illusion... The term used in the design industry is "green washing" It's also interesting to me that even on LEED certified projects, there are no instructions for the occupants of the "green building" once the project is complete. There are things the occupants must do in order to fulfill the intent, efficiency and sustainability of the design. Yet once the building is completed, there is nothing in place to assure that these measures are taken. Hmmmm...note to self...possible business idea....

  I think it's important to use the resources we have wisely... not waste them. I live it. It makes sense economically to do so. I don't believe that man is causing the warming/climate change, though. Not so long ago, a great deal of North America was covered by glaciers. Over time they receeded...due to...drum roll please.... warming. That happened long before the first car was invented or the first factory was built. The planet has had many thermal changes up and down.

  The proof of the pudding is this: If the leaders of the "Global Warming/Climate Change" croud really believed what they were preaching....they would live it. They don't. The grand pubah himself uses more energy in a week than I do in a year..... not to mention all the hot air he emits.... sorry I couldn't resist

  Coffee
• 

  AK - Jeff

  I hate those pesky Grand Pubahs. They mess up everything for the religious followers. LOL

  Jeff
• 

  inkling

  Inkling, chill out. My opening statement was obviously satire. I love Polar bears

  And I would think my comment would have been taken as much the same, seeing
  as I added the little "" face.
• 

  Bubblie

  Anyone from Australia on here. I know you all know about the difference in the sun's effect on your skin there. Isn't the hole in the ozone over your area or is it over New Zealand? They are both wonderful places to visit and everyone should go if they ever have a chance before the ice melts.

  Kit
• 

  besty

  @coffee sez

  Now if the global warming craze hadn't been losing credibility, then why do you think they changed the name?

  I posted here about this very question - it turns out the 'they' you are referring to was a Republican spin doctor

  Incidentally to rebut another common misconception it was the Republican Frank Luntz who lobbied for the phrase 'climate change' to be used instead of 'global warming' back in 2002. Kind of ironic now that anytime 'climate change' is mentioned the denier delayers all cry foul, it_used_to_be_global_warming....

  Here's some more of that memo:

  ""The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science," Mr Luntz writes in the memo, obtained by the Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based campaigning organisation.

  "Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly.

  "Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate."

  The phrase "global warming" should be abandoned in favour of "climate change", Mr Luntz says, and the party should describe its policies as "conservationist" instead of "environmentalist", because "most people" think environmentalists are "extremists" who indulge in "some pretty bizarre behaviour... that turns off many voters"."

  Interesting that Mr Luntz concluded that 2002 strategy memo with this little hint:

  "A compelling story, even if factually inaccurate, can be more emotionally compelling than a dry recitation of the truth,"

  On the same thread I added some 'missing' information on Dr Dick Lindzen

  Correct - Exxon Mobil don't pay imbeciles and the Cato Institute don't publish the work of imbeciles, even if that particular paper is 17 years old now. He also believes that lung cancer and cigarette smoking are only tenously linked. Of course there will be a continuum of beliefs among climate scientists - the question is where do the majority position themselves and why?

  Why you choose to quote one climate scientist who is clearly brilliantly loopy (lung cancer and smoking not linked - come on.... note his oil industry funding referenced above) is obvious to me at least.

  Incidentally either you missed my request on that same thread, or you bailed out of it, when I asked you for primary source peer reviewed research to back up the cut and paste retired weatherman e-book 'research'. Here's another chance for you to back up your claims.
• 

  besty

  coffee further sez:

  Of course, the good doctor does not suggest that there is absolutely nothing to the matter of Global change. There may be something to it, only perhaps it is not what they insist we believe. His characterization of those who religiously insist on it's absolute truthfulness is interesting isn't it?

  And not just you coffee, others also make the ad hominem-esqe claim that belief in AGW is a religious cult.

  I counter that it is now a mainstream cult - is that possible? When the majority of countries, climate scientists and in fact the current President of the USA belief it to be true, is it even possible to claim that it is a cult anymore? It is accepted as true because it is true, or until somebody comes up with a better theory to explain observable facts.

  I would further add that denial of AGW strikes me as more similar to creationists attacking the theory of evolution. They claim the science is not settled, we need more time, in fact look at our pseudo-science to support creation. And like the AGW deniers/delayers they don't bother with the peer-review scientific process - that would be too inconvenient.

  If there is a religious fervour at work here it is most obviously displayed by the deniers - the real problem they have is with the solution to climate change - the dirty little words the ideologues hate - regulation of their precious free market. But it is unpalatable to be upfront and open about that - so just like creationists, they mount a proxy attack on the scientific community instead.
• 

  besty

  apologies Coffee that was AK -Jeff who said that:

  Of course, the good doctor does not suggest that there is absolutely nothing to the matter of Global change. There may be something to it, only perhaps it is not what they insist we believe. His characterization of those who religiously insist on it's absolute truthfulness is interesting isn't it?