[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

BREAKING! DEEP STATE SWAMP RATS TRYING TO SABOTAGE TRUMP FROM THE INSIDE | Redacted w Clayton Morris [Livestream in progress]

The Media Flips Over Tulsi & Matt Gaetz, Biden & Trump Take A Pic, & Famous People Leave Twitter!

4 arrested in California car insurance scam: 'Clearly a human in a bear suit'

Silk Road Founder Trusts Trump To 'Honor His Pledge' For Commutation

"You DESERVED to LOSE the Senate, the House, and the Presidency!" - Jordan Peterson

"Grand Political Theatre"; FBI Raids Home Of Polymarket CEO; Seize Phone, Electronics

Schoolhouse Limbo: How Low Will Educators Go To Better Grades?

BREAKING: U.S. Army Officers Made a Desperate Attempt To Break Out of The Encirclement in KURSK

Trumps team drawing up list of Pentagon officers to fire, sources say

Israeli Military Planning To Stay in Gaza Through 2025

Hezbollah attacks Israeli army's Tel Aviv HQ twice in one day

People Can't Stop Talking About Elon's Secret Plan For MSNBC And CNN Is Totally Panicking

Tucker Carlson UNLOADS on Diddy, Kamala, Walz, Kimmel, Rich Girls, Conspiracy Theories, and the CIA!

"We have UFO technology that enables FREE ENERGY" Govt. Whistleblowers

They arrested this woman because her son did WHAT?

Parody Ad Features Company That Offers to Cryogenically Freeze Liberals for Duration of TrumpÂ’s Presidency

Elon and Vivek BEGIN Reforming Government, Media LOSES IT

Dear Border Czar: This Nonprofit Boasts A List Of 400 Companies That Employ Migrants

US Deficit Explodes: Blowout October Deficit Means 2nd Worst Start To US Fiscal Year On Record

Gaetz Resigns 'Effective Immediately' After Trump AG Pick; DC In Full Blown Panic

MAHA MEME

noone2222 and John Bolton sitting in a tree K I S S I N G

Donald Trump To Help Construct The Third Temple?

"The Elites Want To ROB Us of Our SOVEREIGNTY!" | Robert F Kennedy

Take Your Money OUT of THESE Banks NOW! - Jim Rickards

Trump Taps Tulsi Gabbard As Director Of National Intelligence

DC In Full Blown Panic After Trump Picks Matt Gaetz For Attorney General

Cleveland Clinic Warns Wave of Mass Deaths Will Wipe Out Covid-Vaxxed Within ‘5 Years’

Judah-ism is as Judah-ism does

Danger ahead: November 2024, Boston Dynamics introduces a fully autonomous "Atlas" robot. Robot humanoids are here.


Science/Tech
See other Science/Tech Articles

Title: Climate change sceptics bet $10,000 on cooler world
Source: Guardian
URL Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1552092,00.html
Published: Aug 19, 2005
Author: David Adam
Post Date: 2005-08-19 14:32:39 by Mr Nuke Buzzcut
Keywords: sceptics, Climate, $10,000
Views: 739
Comments: 68

Climate change sceptics bet $10,000 on cooler world

Russian pair challenge UK expert over global warming

David Adam, science correspondent
Friday August 19, 2005
The Guardian

Two climate change sceptics, who believe the dangers of global warming are overstated, have put their money where their mouth is and bet $10,000 that the planet will cool over the next decade.

The Russian solar physicists Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev have agreed the wager with a British climate expert, James Annan.

The pair, based in Irkutsk, at the Institute of Solar-Terrestrial Physics, believe that global temperatures are driven more by changes in the sun's activity than by the emission of greenhouse gases. They say the Earth warms and cools in response to changes in the number and size of sunspots. Most mainstream scientists dismiss the idea, but as the sun is expected to enter a less active phase over the next few decades the Russian duo are confident they will see a drop in global temperatures.

Dr Annan, who works on the Japanese Earth Simulator supercomputer, in Yokohama, said: "There isn't much money in climate science and I'm still looking for that gold watch at retirement. A pay-off would be a nice top-up to my pension."

To decide who wins the bet, the scientists have agreed to compare the average global surface temperature recorded by a US climate centre between 1998 and 2003, with temperatures they will record between 2012 and 2017.

If the temperature drops Dr Annan will stump up the $10,000 (now equivalent to about £5,800) in 2018. If the Earth continues to warm, the money will go the other way.

The bet is the latest in an increasingly popular field of scientific wagers, and comes after a string of climate change sceptics have refused challenges to back their controversial ideas with cash.

Dr Annan first challenged Richard Lindzen, a meteorologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who is dubious about the extent of human activity influencing the climate. Professor Lindzen had been willing to bet that global temperatures would drop over the next 20 years.

No bet was agreed on that; Dr Annan said Prof Lindzen wanted odds of 50-1 against falling temperatures, so would win $10,000 if the Earth cooled but pay out only £200 if it warmed. Seven other prominent climate change sceptics also failed to agree betting terms.

In May, during BBC Radio 4's Today programme, the environmental activist and Guardian columnist George Monbiot challenged Myron Ebell, a climate sceptic at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, in Washington DC, to a £5,000 bet. Mr Ebell declined, saying he had four children to put through university and did not want to take risks.

Most climate change sceptics dispute the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which suggest that human activity will drive global temperatures up by between 1.4C and 5.8C by the end of the century.

Others, such as the Danish economist Bjorn Lomborg, argue that, although global warming is real, there is little we can do to prevent it and that we would be better off trying to adapt to living in an altered climate.

Dr Annan said bets like the one he made with the Russian sceptics are one way to confront the ideas. He also suggests setting up a financial-style futures market to allow those with critical stakes in the outcome of climate change to gamble on predictions and hedge against future risk.

"Betting on sea level rise would have a very real relevance to Pacific islanders," he said. "By betting on rapid sea-level rise, they would either be able to stay in their homes at the cost of losing the bet if sea level rise was slow, or would win the bet and have money to pay for sea defences or relocation if sea level rise was rapid."

Similar agricultural commodity markets already allow farmers to hedge against bad weather that ruins harvests.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Comments (1-14) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#15. To: Axenolith (#14)

Your analysis is quite accurate.

Here's an interesting site:

Water Vapor Rules the Greenhouse System

"Liberty is the solution of all social and economic questions." ~~Joseph A. Labadie

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-08-28   15:42:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#15)

Great site, definitely bookmarked into the Earth Sciences subdirectory!

Snuggle Bear meets Mossberg... Balance is restored to the world...

Axenolith  posted on  2005-08-28   16:16:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: Axenolith (#14)

Global warming theory is a rage amongst politicians because it offers the appearance to most of a credible threat which would allow the ruling class vast power over movement and resource allocation amongst the subjects. That same ruling class is the one which disburses the research money grants to the people doing "global warming research.

Says who ??????

Steppenwolf  posted on  2005-08-28   19:54:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: Steppenwolf (#17)

What do you mean "says who"?

Me among others. Do you need a widely read source to believe that lots of politicians have orgasms over global warming? Do you need a widely read source to be convinced that multi year reductions of US energy consumption to levels below 199... (1 was it?) would not give legislative bodys vast powers over movement and resources???

Snuggle Bear meets Mossberg... Balance is restored to the world...

Axenolith  posted on  2005-08-28   20:26:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: Axenolith, Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#18)

The two of you are unbelievable. You both parrot the paid shills who claim there is NO global warming and who are laughed at by the ENTIRE scientific community. You simply refuse to acknowledge the enormous body of evidence that exists that proves that Earth's unusual climactic changes are happening. You'd do well to notice that NO ONE in the scientific community disputes that global warming exists. The dispute amongst scholars and scientists who KNOW what they are talking about is whether it is manmade or natural, and what, if anything, it will mean to us.

Therefore, I'm done discussing this subject with you. It's plain to see WHO has been taken in by an agenda vs who is simply listening, learning, and concerned about the possibilities and how they will affect the world at large.

Wanna discuss something else, feel free. Discussing THIS subject with you is no longer an option from my perch. End of story.

Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...

siagiah  posted on  2005-08-29   9:07:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: Steppenwolf (#17)

Certain people have failed to recognize that the very articles that THEY present are written by psuedo scientists (paid shills) who are on the payroll of companies who BENEFIT by having no pollution controls on cars, etc.

They accuse US of wanting legislation to force laws on the rest of us but what they really mean is that THEY support those whose only purpose is to discredit legitimate concerns over air pollution. This way they can insist that it's ALL political instead of a scientific reality.

If the poster actually READ the article he presented to dispute my views, he would have recognized that the article PROVED that "his guy" was a paid shill who was paid by the car manufacturers who DON'T WANT catalytic converters on cars... ROFLMAO... too funny. Supporters of paid shills yelling that other folks are foolish and following some POLITICAL agenda... WRONG...

Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...

siagiah  posted on  2005-08-29   9:12:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: siagiah (#19)

Dude, I didn't parrot shit. As far as answers go, you can launch into the "paid shills" bullshit all you want but "parroting paid shills" is a stock answer for you either not having shit for a reply or being to fucking lazy to look one up and cogently present it.

BTW, I'll buy a near insignificant and unmeasurable (with any consistency) warming but the anthropogensis of same is bullshit. It's more likely than not solar in origin. It means not JACK to the state of the world now or in the future.

Therefore, I'm done discussing this subject with you. Wanna discuss something else, feel free. Discussing THIS subject with you is no longer an option from my perch. End of story.

You fucking pussy... Will you run off and declare the next subject where you have no decent counterpoint to be "off limits"?

Snuggle Bear meets Mossberg... Balance is restored to the world...

Axenolith  posted on  2005-08-29   9:16:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: siagiah (#20)

If the poster actually READ the article he presented to dispute my views, he would have recognized that the article PROVED that "his guy" was a paid shill who was paid by the car manufacturers who DON'T WANT catalytic converters on cars...

Hey idiot, catalytic converters don't have shit to do with eliminating CO2, they eliminate unburned Hydrocarbons and Carbon Monoxide... A car with or without one isn't germane to a global warming debate...

Snuggle Bear meets Mossberg... Balance is restored to the world...

Axenolith  posted on  2005-08-29   9:20:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: Axenolith (#21)

fuck off...

Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...

siagiah  posted on  2005-08-29   9:27:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: Axenolith (#22)

The article that Buzz presented was all about a "scientist" who "proved" that global warming doesn't exist. He works for the guys who don't want catalytic converters etc and other pollution reducers on cars... You ALSO have proven my statement that the posters didn't READ the article offered supposedly disproving my statement that global warming DOES exist. That neither of you read it: he before submitting it or you before answering about me says volumes about both of your REAL concerns about this subject.

I won't continue conversations with YOU because you're a rude, vulgar person, NOT because I can't offer evidence to dispute your remarks. I simply don't give a shit what you think and will not entertain your idiocy in expressing your displeasure. Clearly, you NEED vulgarity and derision to express yourself. Don't you know that that is a sign of ignorance and the inability to articulate? In my previous answer to you where I said FUCK OFF, I was stooping to your inarticulate level assuming you'd UNDERSTAND that message. So there it is... FUCK OFF...

Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...

siagiah  posted on  2005-08-29   9:35:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: siagiah (#12)

siagaih said:

Second: My position is only that global warming EXISTS. It is not fully established whether it is fully caused by man, partly, or not at all. In fact, my position is that it doesn't even MATTER why. What matters is that it EXISTS and therefore, what does it mean to us and what, if anything, are we gonna do about it. Even your guy acknowledges that the environmental changes EXIST. He simply doesn't believe it's unnatural. SO WHAT?

The lunatics response:

The whole "Human Induced" global warming scam has been thoroughly discredited and shown for the political agenda that it really is. If you've been taken in by it, I'm sorry.

Does this lunatic even have the ability to read and understand the English language? I have my doubts.

Are we but an organic computer influenced by our environment to desire one set of neuropeptides over another, equating into competition for self worth on a primitive level never realized by the shallow and self empowering.

timetobuildaboat  posted on  2005-08-29   9:49:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: siagiah (#24)

MEOOOWW goes the Siagiah

I won't continue conversations with YOU because you're a rude, vulgar person, NOT because I can't offer evidence to dispute your remarks. I simply don't give a shit what you think and will not entertain your idiocy in expressing your displeasure. Clearly, you NEED vulgarity and derision to express yourself. Don't you know that that is a sign of ignorance and the inability to articulate? In my previous answer to you where I said FUCK OFF, I was stooping to your inarticulate level assuming you'd UNDERSTAND that message. So there it is... FUCK OFF..

Whining Loser. I had nothing to do with the site he posted, though I liked the mathematical breakdown of the data and so posted a comment to him on it.

You, in your canopy sized wrap of self righteous indignation, seem to forget that YOU first launched into the insult fest with the "paid shills" shit to me. And you had NOTHING to counter what I offered. And now you want to run off and take your ball home because your wittle feewings are hurt..

You pussy...

Snuggle Bear meets Mossberg... Balance is restored to the world...

Axenolith  posted on  2005-08-29   9:59:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: siagiah (#19)

Therefore, I'm done discussing this subject with you.

You never did "discuss" the subject. You just whined and cried about personal attacks when we posted actual hard evidence refuting the global warming political propaganda whose only goal is to inflate research grants and provide leverage for additional state control of economies.

"Liberty is the solution of all social and economic questions." ~~Joseph A. Labadie

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-08-29   10:53:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: timetobuildaboat (#25)

Does this lunatic even have the ability to read and understand the English language? I have my doubts.

Rather than cast insults, you might want to read siagaih's history of posts on the subject which make it quite clear where she stands with respect to global warming. ;-)

"Liberty is the solution of all social and economic questions." ~~Joseph A. Labadie

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-08-29   10:57:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: siagiah, All (#12)

Certainly you UNDERSTAND the concept of paid shills? Paid research that supports the ideas of those who fund it?

Paid Shills eh???, Obviously ALL global warming research oriented toward proving the existence of it, or the anthropogenic genesis thereof, is BS because 80 or 90 some odd percent of it is funded by research grants from collectivist globalist organizations like the Rockefeller and Ford foundations or government entities with an interest in regulating us, right?

I mean, you do understand the concept of PAID SHILLS right???

Snuggle Bear meets Mossberg... Balance is restored to the world...

Axenolith  posted on  2005-08-29   10:57:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: siagiah (#24)

I won't continue conversations with YOU because you're a rude, vulgar person... So there it is... FUCK OFF...

What was that about rude and vulgar?

"Liberty is the solution of all social and economic questions." ~~Joseph A. Labadie

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-08-29   10:58:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: Axenolith (#18)

Me among others.

Now name somebody who really matters....LOL

Steppenwolf  posted on  2005-08-29   14:25:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: siagiah (#20)

he would have recognized that the article PROVED that "his guy" was a paid shill who was paid by the car manufacturers who DON'T WANT catalytic converters on cars... ROFLMAO

Yes ,I found that humorous too...I've read your posts ,you are a very bright woman who expresses herself very cogently.

Steppenwolf  posted on  2005-08-29   14:47:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: Axenolith (#22)

he would have recognized that the article PROVED that "his guy" was a paid shill who was paid by the car manufacturers who DON'T WANT catalytic converters on cars...

All Siagiah was saying was that there are paid shills for the oil companies and there are paid shills for the auto manufacturers.Her point was that that they take their positions for the money they are paid.It seems the same people who are against reducing pollution are also opponents of the scientific theory which says the burning of hydrocarbons contributes to global warming .

Steppenwolf  posted on  2005-08-29   15:53:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: Steppenwolf (#33)

Stepp, don't waste your time on either of them. I won't ever again. I'm gonna bozo both of them and go on my merry way. Too bad, so sad... their loss, not mine. (-:

Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...

siagiah  posted on  2005-08-29   19:36:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: Steppenwolf (#32)

I've read your posts ,you are a very bright woman who expresses herself very cogently.

Especially when she cogently decends into profanity when faced with evidence contrary to her line of propaganda.

"Liberty is the solution of all social and economic questions." ~~Joseph A. Labadie

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-08-29   21:17:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: Steppenwolf (#31)

Now name somebody who really matters....LOL

Hey dude, California registered Professional Geologist and 16 years in the environmental and emergency response field...

Snuggle Bear meets Mossberg... Balance is restored to the world...

Axenolith  posted on  2005-08-29   23:56:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: Steppenwolf (#32)

I've read your posts ,you are a very bright woman who expresses herself very cogently.

But believes that in the year 2005 their are car manufacturers that want catalytic converters out of cars and that catalytic converters have something to do with greenhouse emissions...

LMAO

Snuggle Bear meets Mossberg... Balance is restored to the world...

Axenolith  posted on  2005-08-29   23:58:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: Steppenwolf (#33)

All Siagiah was saying was that there are paid shills for the oil companies and there are paid shills for the auto manufacturers.Her point was that that they take their positions for the money they are paid.It seems the same people who are against reducing pollution are also opponents of the scientific theory which says the burning of hydrocarbons contributes to global warming .

And my response is that, regardless of who pays the guy what, hydrocarbon burning by humans is an insignificant contributor to any variation in climate within the time frame we're looking at.

Even if I take devils advocate and assume it is, the treaties and proposed solutions are totally one sided attempts to undermine the economic strength of the United States.

It is a fact that out of control subterranean coal fires in China exceed vehicular outputs in the US for CO2.

If there was any seiousness to curbing some postulated human induced warming trend, the solutions would logically allow for the United States to offset emissions via either forestation or activities like remediating large problematic sources, but they don't. That they don't says to me there is a hidden agenda in the hype...

Snuggle Bear meets Mossberg... Balance is restored to the world...

Axenolith  posted on  2005-08-30   0:25:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: Steppenwolf (#33)

Additionally, your reply to this will allow Siagiah an opportunity to view it...

I formally apologize for inserting unseemly ad hominems in my response to Siagiah.

Please do understand though, that it is inflammatory to assert in a post to a dissenting reply that the responder is a "paid shill" for someone when there is no evidence supporting such other than, in this case, my dissenting opinion.

I will endevour to a greater degree of civility.

FTR, I have no connection whatsoever to any manufacturer of automobiles or other industries which produce equipment designed to burn carbon or hydrocarbon products. I am a long term small shareholder of one oil facility emergency response provider with whom I have no ongoing personal relationship.

Snuggle Bear meets Mossberg... Balance is restored to the world...

Axenolith  posted on  2005-08-30   0:37:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: Axenolith (#39)

Please do understand though, that it is inflammatory to assert in a post to a dissenting reply that the responder is a "paid shill"

I have never seen a post from Siagiah where she called the POSTER a paid shill...But what she HAS said is, the fossil fuel interests have as a corporate policy "scientists" on their payroll to present their point of view which is ,SELL MORE OIL AND COAL ! But I appreciate your apology and I'm sure when I tell her,she will too. Thank you...

Steppenwolf  posted on  2005-08-30   15:35:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#41. To: Axenolith, Steppenwolf, All (#39)

Axenolith: I formally apologize for inserting unseemly ad hominems in my response to Siagiah

Apology accepted... and please accept mine for my vulgar return fire.

Now that we've cleared that hurdle, here is my explanation for mentioning catalytic converters. (I am NOT an expert on these matters, particularly on vehicle emission equipment so I used catalytic converters to describe them) THIS paragraph comes directly from the article Buzz posted as proof that my view that global warming existed was wrong based on his "presumed expert, George Taylor"...

"FROM BUZZ'S ARTICLE: In April, George Taylor sat patiently in front of the Oregon House Environment Committee, whose chairman, Grants Pass Republican Gordon Anderson, is likewise skeptical of global-warming theories. Taylor testified on a bill that would have required autos in Oregon to meet California's new stricter emissions standards beginning in 2009. Taylor poohpoohed the need for the bill, which would reduce greenhouse gas emissions from tailpipes. "I believe the effect of greenhouse gas is a relatively minor one," Taylor told the committee. "I really believe natural variation and natural factors are a bigger cause of climate change than you and I." The bill died. If it had been approved, new emissions standards would be in place in the three Pacific states. Washington has a similar law, but it takes effect only after Oregon enacts its own. But Taylor's message gave cover to Anderson, who says, "I am not going to take the position that everything is going to hell. We're not going to wrap up our country and tie a noose around our neck." In the weeks after Taylor testified, the Oregon Legislature passed a budget amendment barring state agencies from spending any money to reduce emissions of so- called "greenhouse gases," like carbon dioxide, that scientists say cause global warming by accumulating in the atmosphere and trapping heat. The amendment would stop the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality from enacting "cleaner cars" legislation that would remove carbon dioxide from tailpipes."

My comment: I'm sure you can see from this exerpt that the so~called expert Buzz introduced IS UNQUESTIONABLY A PAID SHILL. I did not intend for any POSTER to be referred to as a paid shill, only the apparently paid experts presented. If you peruse the entire article, you'll note that the guy is considered to be a crackpot amongst his peers and as ignorant by most scientists. I was flabbergasted that Buzz presented this piece as something that would "shake up my beliefs"... I am presuming that he DID NOT READ IT before posting it....??? Nearly every remark I made came from that position. I am not sure if Buzz INTENDED that error to see if I'd actually read it & notice or if he simply didn't care either way because he just wanted to be an itch... it's impossible to tell.

Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...

siagiah  posted on  2005-08-30   22:30:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#42. To: siagiah (#12)

I can't read that font. Perhaps you'll downsize it for the stupids among us?

Another Mogambo Day

rack42  posted on  2005-08-30   22:36:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#43. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#28)

timetobuildaboat said: Does this lunatic (referring to Buzz) even have the ability to read and understand the English language? I have my doubts.

Mr Nuke Buzzcut said: Rather than cast insults, you (timetobuildaboat) might want to read siagaih's history of posts on the subject which make it quite clear where she (siagiah) stands with respect to global warming. ;-)

Actually Buzz, it is YOU who might want to read my history of posts. You are definitely NOT COMPREHENDING my words. If it wasn't just you who keeps insisting I said something I didn't, I'd say I wasn't presenting it well, but it IS just you who insists that I'm saying things I never said. That signals to me that you simply don't want to understand, you just want to dip pigtails and make noise.

Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...

siagiah  posted on  2005-08-30   22:44:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#44. To: siagiah (#41)

Buzz introduced IS UNQUESTIONABLY A PAID SHILL.

I'm sorry, but your assessment as to Buzz as a shill is, well, mistaken, in my opinion. You'll need to provide more evidence to support your accusations.

Another Mogambo Day

rack42  posted on  2005-08-30   22:45:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#45. To: rack42 (#42)

I can't read that font. Perhaps you'll downsize it for the stupids among us?

I'm sorry, I don't know what you are talking about???

Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...

siagiah  posted on  2005-08-30   22:45:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#46. To: rack42 (#44)

Buzz introduced IS UNQUESTIONABLY A PAID SHILL. I'm sorry, but your assessment as to Buzz as a shill is, well, mistaken, in my opinion. You'll need to provide more evidence to support your accusations.

I didn't call Buzz anything. I called the scientist he introduced as proof of his point a paid shill.

Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...

siagiah  posted on  2005-08-30   22:46:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#47. To: All (#46)

The article Buzz introduced IS THE PROOF. I pasted it after the giant font for anyone who wants to read it... or you can follow HIS link for a better read. My got all jumbled together in the copy/paste. If you read it, you'll see WHO I called a paid shill. (hint: NO ONE HERE...)

Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...

siagiah  posted on  2005-08-30   22:48:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#48. To: Axenolith, All (#47)

Quote from article Buzz presented: " In the weeks after Taylor testified, the Oregon Legislature passed a budget amendment barring state agencies from spending any money to reduce emissions of so- called "greenhouse gases," like carbon dioxide, that scientists say cause global warming by accumulating in the atmosphere and trapping heat. The amendment would stop the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality from enacting "cleaner cars" legislation that would remove carbon dioxide from tailpipes."

Comment made to me by Axenolith: Hey XXXXX, catalytic converters don't have shit to do with eliminating CO2, they eliminate unburned Hydrocarbons and Carbon Monoxide... A car with or without one isn't germane to a global warming debate...

NOW I am confused... Unless I am just misunderstanding your remark made in anger, it appears that the article states/implies that scientists include carbon dioxide in the greenhouse gases equation which is why car emissions are considered part of the problem by some.... But that is exactly the opposite to your angry remark to me... Can you explain? I honestly don't know which is correct? Are carbon dioxide emissions part of the global warming debate or not??? (I'm not asking if they do or do not contribute to global warming, only if they are on the table as a disputable PART of global warming)

Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...

siagiah  posted on  2005-08-30   23:12:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#49. To: siagiah (#48)

I can certainly grant your point that Taylor looks like a paid shill. The problem is that so does everybody else on every side of the issue. None of them are without sponsors and/or employers. Everybody from researchers to journalists draws sustenance from some interested party or another.

Consequently, we are back to square one of ignoring the source, disregarding their conclusions and actually evaluating the data and methods, then coming to what we consider a rational conclusion on our own. Yes, I acknowledge that in doing so, I bring my own bias to the table. That's why I'm (believe it or not) willing to adjust my position in the event that I am confronted with evidence that I'm in the wrong. At this point, I'm still firmly convinced that the climate change we are presently experiencing has extremely little to do with human induced causes. Does that mean there aren't things we should do better? Of course not. We absolutely need to make improvements in some areas. However, Kyoto is not one of the changes that we should even consider.

"Liberty is the solution of all social and economic questions." ~~Joseph A. Labadie

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-08-30   23:31:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#50. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#49)

okay... I can accept that and I agree with you.

Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...

siagiah  posted on  2005-08-30   23:43:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#51. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut, all (#50)

Clarification: I agree with you on the statement that Kyoto is something to be considered CAREFULLY before hopping on board and that there are things humans can do better.

Personally, I'm leaning somewhat towards a significant, measurable PART of global warming being traced back to recent human activities. I don't know how big a part we play or if our actual part has been only a trigger action that has stimulated nature to react.

My biggest concern is to learn HOW they will manifest themselves (ice age, flooding, increase in insects, affecting food supplies, ocean temperatures, air quality, etc and then WHAT these changes will mean to us if they continue on the present path. IF they will mean serious threats to Earth, THEN it matters WHY.

Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...

siagiah  posted on  2005-08-31   0:04:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#52. To: siagiah (#51)

For me, the "why" is very important, because that determines what, if anything, we need to do differently. The worst case scenario, in my book, is running around blindly passing laws (I'm not accusing you of advocating that) just because we have to do something. Politicians like to do that. They like to be seen as "owning" an issue and pointing to their "accomplishments" at election time.

"Liberty is the solution of all social and economic questions." ~~Joseph A. Labadie

Mr Nuke Buzzcut  posted on  2005-08-31   0:11:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#53. To: siagiah, Mr Nuke Buzzcut, Axenolith (#51)

my furrowed brows are now smoothed and i'm smiling. ;)

Freedom4um: a Todd free zone!

christine  posted on  2005-08-31   0:24:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#54. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#52)

For the record, I am totally AGAINST passing laws for or against anything if the law is not absolutely ESSENTIAL to preserving life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

IMHO, with global warming, the most important factor isn't "why", it's WHAT DOES IT MEAN. The reason for that is simple. What difference does it make WHY if it's not an important issue in the first place? If it doesn't matter that the average temperature has risen a degree in the last century and nothing of consequence will result because of it, then there is no NEED to pass any laws in the first place.

Global warming isn't as clear cut an issue as pollution problems directly related to human activity. Certainly, no one believes that air or water pollution is a GOOD thing? Curbing both of them can only result in a healthier environment. HOW to enforce it is the issue because laws passed hastily often create more problems than they fix. At the same time, refusing to do anything because the issue is mired in endless dispute only makes it harder to clean up the damage when we finally acknowledge it exists.

I am against hasty laws because laws that unnecessarily tie the hands of businesses can result in lost jobs. That isn't a good thing either. However, the almighty dollar ISN'T the defining issue when it comes to irreversibly destroying the environment. We cannot buy back what we sometimes destroy in our greed a/o ignorance. Tainting it is inevitable and probably quite natural, willfully causing irreversible damage entirely another. So first, we have to know WHAT we are dealing with and HOW it will harm us. Our "leaders" focus on worrying about WHY and WHOSE FAULT it is only allows us all to lose sight of the question of IF IT EVEN MATTERS IN THE FIRST PLACE. Obfuscation is the name of this game. Divide and conquer. Some for passing laws for material gain/political power... some muddying the water to prevent anyone from examining business practices etc etc

Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...

siagiah  posted on  2005-08-31   0:36:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#55. To: christine (#53)

To: siagiah, Mr Nuke Buzzcut, Axenolith my furrowed brows are now smoothed and i'm smiling. ;)

me too... me too... good evening Christine~!

Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...

siagiah  posted on  2005-08-31   0:39:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (56 - 68) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]