New NASA Data Blows Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

[MuyLocoNC]

It's not just that he gets money from Exxon. He works for a firm that is hired by Exxon as political lobbyists. He has extreme bias.

Also, while global warming may as well be not as significant as painted to be, it in no way would mean that it is okay to continue to harm our ecosystem as we are. Whether our current industry is greatly affected the earth now, it absolutely will in the future. As I've said, we only have one earth and we need to treat it like our lives depend on it, because our lives do.

Fair enough, but I stand behind my ealier post. It still doesn't mean he's wrong. I have no problem with moving to "green" technology, I'm sure it's going to happen, will HAVE to happen. My problem is with all the "alarmist" "immediate danger" "the debate is over" crap that comes from these Eco-Loons that think the earth is on the very brink of becoming uninhabitable.

If the data is accurate, and so far I've read NOTHING that shows it isn't, then we possible have centuries to develop "green" technology. We don't need to hamstring our lives and activities or our economies just to redistribute wealth. I understand that most of these kooks actually believe the bullshit, but the individuals orchestrating this fraud are after the money, that ain't a conspiracy theory, that's the nature of a great many men through history, I have no reason to think that has changed.

 

[UncleBuck]

You can talk about it all you want, have meetings, vote for leaders and crown them with Eco-Loon Grand Poobah hats, just don't expect any of us to believe it and/or help you dessimate our economy and way of life over the MMGW fraud. Carry on and go buy a hybrid death mobile, flourescent bulbs and move into a teepee for all I care, I'll wave as I drive by in my Tahoe full of a lifetime supply of incandescent bulbs on the way to my overly air conditioned home.

And even if he takes money from Exxon and endorses intelligent design, that doesn't mean he's wrong. And so far the only "peers" I've heard denouncing his data is one liberal twat, who most likely gets HER MONEY from those who want this fraud advanced. That bullshit dismissal works both ways. We'll see how this one plays out, but my money is on MMGW being just as much bullshit as the last hundred impending Eco disasters.

Recycling is a perfect litmus test...lol, that's all I need to know about you. If you actually recycle, you're a hopeless loon.

i make about $30-$40 every month recycling. guess that makes me a hopeless loon

you go ahead and carry on with your gas guzzler, light bulbs that cost you 4x as much, and air conditioning, i'll enjoy the breeze from my screen doors as i pass you while you are filling up for the 12th time after 47 miles

"they just want to take your money"

Fair enough, but I stand behind my ealier post. It still doesn't mean he's wrong. I have no problem with moving to "green" technology, I'm sure it's going to happen, will HAVE to happen. My problem is with all the "alarmist" "immediate danger" "the debate is over" crap that comes from these Eco-Loons that think the earth is on the very brink of becoming uninhabitable.

If the data is accurate, and so far I've read NOTHING that shows it isn't, then we possible have centuries to develop "green" technology. We don't need to hamstring our lives and activities or our economies just to redistribute wealth. I understand that most of these kooks actually believe the bullshit, but the individuals orchestrating this fraud are after the money, that ain't a conspiracy theory, that's the nature of a great many men through history, I have no reason to think that has changed.

in the links i posted that show spencer is a partisan hack with no business being in science (although, since he actually endorses intelligent design, which is not scientifically testable, i'll have to say "science") there are a few links you can follow that refute his study and show him to be a complete "science" hack.

have fun screaming about how right you are because you have a few bought and paid for "scientists", i'll go ahead and redistribute myself some wealth by living in sustainable, green ways and listening to the vast majority of actual scientists, who, as you so kindly pointed out, are "bought and paid for" with meager research grants that surely make them wealthy beyond our wildest imaginations could ever ponder

 

[NoDrama]

you did claim back in the thread about the food safety and modernization act that farmer's markets would cease to exist and that this was the 'first step towards complete corporate takeover of the food supply'.

other people claimed my backyard garden would be illegal. you might have been one of them.

You got the quote right, but I never made the claim that farmers markets would disappear. I said that this gives them the authority to make your garden illegal, farmers markets illegal. basically anything you grow is now under the auspice of Homeland Security. That was the claim that was made, and its 100% true.

 

[MuyLocoNC]

i make about $30-$40 every month recycling. guess that makes me a hopeless loon

you go ahead and carry on with your gas guzzler, light bulbs that cost you 4x as much, and air conditioning, i'll enjoy the breeze from my screen doors as i pass you while you are filling up for the 12th time after 47 miles

"they just want to take your money"



in the links i posted that show spencer is a partisan hack with no business being in science (although, since he actually endorses intelligent design, which is not scientifically testable, i'll have to say "science") there are a few links you can follow that refute his study and show him to be a complete "science" hack.

have fun screaming about how right you are because you have a few bought and paid for "scientists", i'll go ahead and redistribute myself some wealth by living in sustainable, green ways and listening to the vast majority of actual scientists, who, as you so kindly pointed out, are "bought and paid for" with meager research grants that surely make them wealthy beyond our wildest imaginations could ever ponder

Brother, you recycle if it makes you happy, just don't try to make me do it.

That gas guzzler gives me and my family a 4X higher survivability rate in the event of a severe accident. I'm happy to pay for those odds. If you're comfortable in that rolling coffin on wheels, more power to ya, but again don't try to make me do it.

I have quite a few LED bulbs in my home, but I prefer the feel of the light from the incandescents, when they get that right, I'm all in. But I sure as hell don't want or need to be "TOLD" I don't have a choice.

Again, until I come across study that refutes the data, not just rambling dismissals from the very people whose very careers are sustained by grants from agencies and individuals that "require" them to toe the line.

As for the debate being over, I will always point you to the 31,000+ scientists that signed the OISM petition from WAY WAY back in 2008. I guess all of them are bought and paid for by big oil, of course they are. Or maybe as I've put forth time and time again. Temperature increases ALWAYS precede CO2 increases...always have...always will.

Maybe you can pick up on a common theme of most of the people arguing against MMGW on these threads...we don't care what you want to do, or even if you want to stand up on a soap box and shout it to the masses, just don't try to make me live in accordance with your beliefs. Personally, I'm eager for the day we are all driving Tesla Roadsters that can actually protect us in an accident.

 

[NoDrama]

I'm probably the greenest guy on the forum. The whole idea that man has made the earth so much hotter in the last decade and is the total blame for climate change is BS.

 

[mame]

Why isn't the U.S. investing in alternative energy on a massive scale again? I mean, we've got the borrowing power... High unemployment... We've got conditions that indicate no "crowding out"... We've got an unhealthy dependance on foreign oil... We're falling behind other advanced nations every day....

Infrastructure is a safer investment, I know... But we aren't doing that either.

 

[NoDrama]

Why isn't the U.S. investing in alternative energy on a massive scale again? I mean, we've got the borrowing power... High unemployment... We've got conditions that indicate no "crowding out"... We've got an unhealthy dependance on foreign oil... We're falling behind other advanced nations every day....

Infrastructure is a safer investment, I know... But we aren't doing that either.

Because with lots of energy man is not dependent on others. Can you imagine if we all had unlimited energy? What would we ever need government for?

 

[mame]

I think it'd probably help if getting something through congress wasn't about as painful as passing a Kidney stone...

 

[NoDrama]

I think it'd probably help if getting something through congress wasn't about as painful as passing a Kidney stone...

Right now its more akin to having your leg amputated without the aid of anesthesia.

 

[mame]

I just watched that movie "127 Days" - the part where he has to cut that big ass nerve comes to mind.

 

[londonfog]

A little FYI.... the whole light bulb thing was actually started when Bush was in office....Most teabaggers and repukes fail to realize this

 

[mame]

Besides that, the light bulb thing is a good example of when the government SHOULD be intervening anyway...

As someone who is familiar with the industry, most people have no idea what lightbulbs they need for their fixtures let alone do they have any idea about what their choices are... The light bulb industry prior to florescents was very stagnant, with incandescent's being used for how long? I mean, people have MORE choices and MORE quality in the newer technology - especially the newer LED's that are coming out(new models every few months it seems)... The incandescent ban produced innovation and competition in the lighting industry, it is a shining example of government intervention succeeding.

 

[NoDrama]

Yes, it's a wonderful day when government limits your choices, indeed.

 

[londonfog]

Yes, it's a wonderful day when government limits your choices, indeed.

yeah damn government telling me to drive on the right side of the street.hell I want to drive on the left side sometimes..oncoming traffic just need to move over

 

[undertheice]

yeah damn government telling me to drive on the right side of the street.hell I want to drive on the left side sometimes..oncoming traffic just need to move over

in a rather typical response to an objection to governmental intrusion, we have here the simplistic answer almost invariably offered by the statist. of course we have laws forbidding all sorts of actions that are detrimental to society, but we don't have those laws to keep people from doing the wrong thing. we have those laws so we can punish those who don't toe the line. indiscriminate homicide is disruptive and infringes on the rights of others, so we have laws against murder to punish those who cross the line. a seventy-five car pile-up on the 405, simply because someone wanted to drive against traffic, is similarly disruptive and also infringes on the rights of those who are willing to go along with the accepted tradition of driving on the right, so we have laws that punish people who refuse follow that direction. none of our laws ever kept someone from doing something wrong, the majority of the population does that all on their own. our laws are there to bring down the violent force of government on the heads of those who insist on stepping outside the bounds of decency.

you might consider using incandescent light bulbs to be beyond the bounds of decency, but i have to wonder whose rights are being trampled by this. just as with our archaic drug laws, the limiting of choice for the sake of expedience serves no one but the powers of control. outlawing an item does not make anyone quit using it. it only offers the state another way to punish those who refuse to abide by its arbitrary regulation. this may seem a step forward to the statist, but a step backward to anyone wishing to exercise their freedoms.

 

[mame]

You may not have the choice of incandescent lightbulbs, but you do have more choices than before and they are higher quality (at least LEDs).

 

[sync0s]

Mame, our government already invests in energy on a large scale. It's called oil.

 

[undertheice]

You may not have the choice of incandescent light bulbs, but you do have more choices than before and they are higher quality (at least LEDs).

another excellent example of statist philosophy. as long as some silver lining can be found, no matter how distant or illusory, a case can be made for even the most flagrant abuse of governmental force. the ends can always be made to justify any means.

 

[ginjawarrior]

Why isn't the U.S. investing in alternative energy on a massive scale again? I mean, we've got the borrowing power... High unemployment... We've got conditions that indicate no "crowding out"... We've got an unhealthy dependance on foreign oil... We're falling behind other advanced nations every day....

Infrastructure is a safer investment, I know... But we aren't doing that either.

how about doing both at same time?

[youtube]Ep4L18zOEYI[/youtube]

if this works out to be a viable economic option would every be happy to pay taxes to get this rolled across the US?

 

[londonfog]

in a rather typical response to an objection to governmental intrusion, we have here the simplistic answer almost invariably offered by the statist. of course we have laws forbidding all sorts of actions that are detrimental to society, but we don't have those laws to keep people from doing the wrong thing. we have those laws so we can punish those who don't toe the line. indiscriminate homicide is disruptive and infringes on the rights of others, so we have laws against murder to punish those who cross the line. a seventy-five car pile-up on the 405, simply because someone wanted to drive against traffic, is similarly disruptive and also infringes on the rights of those who are willing to go along with the accepted tradition of driving on the right, so we have laws that punish people who refuse follow that direction. none of our laws ever kept someone from doing something wrong, the majority of the population does that all on their own. our laws are there to bring down the violent force of government on the heads of those who insist on stepping outside the bounds of decency.

you might consider using incandescent light bulbs to be beyond the bounds of decency, but i have to wonder whose rights are being trampled by this. just as with our archaic drug laws, the limiting of choice for the sake of expedience serves no one but the powers of control. outlawing an item does not make anyone quit using it. it only offers the state another way to punish those who refuse to abide by its arbitrary regulation. this may seem a step forward to the statist, but a step backward to anyone wishing to exercise their freedoms.

why do people even try to defend incandescent light bulbs...hell being a grower should have taught you the value of CFL or LED, as well as the waste of energy, in the form of heat, coming from incandescent bulbs..Now if you dwell in a trailer and use the bulbs as a form of heat..maybe you can argue a tad...and if you only have an "easy bake oven" to do all your cooking in.. again maybe you can argue...anything else is just an old lady complaining...time and technology moves forward suggest you do the same..but if you really feel the need to get your "old lady bitch on".. please direct it towards Crawford TX.