Global Warming debate

[Pidgey]

Oh!

Gosh...

...I never would have suspected.

 

[Pidgey]

Take a look at the commercials that are now everywhere about "Clean Coal" being untrue. There are many valuable and credible studies about coal cleaners working very well. These commercials are nothing more than lies!!

From a legal standpoint, if they codify that Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a "pollutant", then "Clean Coal" won't "exist" anymore, now, will it?

 

[Mr.Dysfunctional]

Oh, well... there are other lists. I guess it's time to start labelling, denouncing, mud-slinging and the like, huh? Guess we better start here:

http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GWPP/Frequently_Asked_Questions.html

Mind you Pidgey... bringing relavant information to the forefront for our fellow forum members is by no means labeling , denoucing or mudslinging.
In fact it could be argued that it does the exact opposite.
However.. based on just the two sites you listed.. it seems to (( a non-scientist by trade as nearly all our members are )) that its quite overwhelming without reading the actual reports that there are many misconceptions given by Al Gore and the highly publicized " AN Inconvient truth"

The fact remains that while both sides of studies and reports to back up their claims (( which should be scurtinized by all of considering the implications )) , it has only been one side at this point that seems to be forcefully misinterrputing the data.

As with all things I have seen up to this point in a debate.. for me .. this immeditally raises the bull**** flag.

Thou this thread needs no moderator.. its obvious that AWG believers should answer back to the claims presented by just the two links listed by Pidgey.

And Mr.Shaman.. please... do not use my posts to further your propaganda hate machine on News organizations I am not affliated with or my responders affliated with.. As so many of the other posts I have read of yours.. It seems more callous then productive towards a good conversation.

 

[Dr.Who]

From a legal standpoint, if they codify that Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a "pollutant", then "Clean Coal" won't "exist" anymore, now, will it?

Neither would clean breathing exist anymore. Time to tax all those breathers out there.

 

[Unite Our Nation]

Neither would clean breathing exist anymore. Time to tax all those breathers out there.

LMAO Dr. Who!! Yeah, the politicos in charge could soon "codify" us all out of our prime rib or rib eye for dinner!!! The waste from those d*amn cows!

No doubt, veggie people wouldn't mind...

 

[Stalin]

Global Warming is a hypothesis.

The current hypothesis ( e.g. Avogadro's Hypothesis ) is usually valid until a better hypothesis is adopted.

So what is the better hypothesis ?

Stalin

 

[Mr. Shaman]

And Mr.Shaman.. please... do not use my posts to further your propaganda hate machine on News organizations I am not affliated with or my responders affliated with.

I'm sure that retort (probably) made sense....to you....when you (first) came-up-with-it. ​

"....propaganda hate machine...."​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Global Warming is a hypothesis.

Kinda' like Evolution, right?

​

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Yeah, there is actually snow on Kilimajaro it is just that it has turned green.

And the polar ice caps haven't shrunk, they have just turned sea blue.

 

[Andy]

I'm a bet amazed by this thread. Normally there are at least a few more substantive people supporting the AGW myth than this. The only one who seems remotely in support would be Shaman, which has yet to provide one, even plausible response.

Is it possible the ruse is over? Has the conventional wisdom sham finely been broken? Or are all the liberals just not up to for trying to defend it even if they still believe it?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I'm a bet amazed by this thread. Normally there are at least a few more substantive people supporting the AGW myth than this. The only one who seems remotely in support would be Shaman, which has yet to provide one, even plausible response.

Yeah.....it's a real chore.....taking-the-word of NASA-scientists....over the word of some oil-exec.

 

[Pidgey]

Yeah.....it's a real chore.....taking-the-word of NASA-scientists....over the word of some oil-exec.

Well, sometimes it really can be (difficult to take the word of a NASA scientist):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x402021

...when they can't be trusted to tell the truth based on their own undeniable historical record. Hansen's been at that game for quite awhile:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjQ2YTllODZiOTA0N2E2MTIzODQwNjUzMjQwYjI2MDI=

 

[Pidgey]

So... explain that (see above) as well as this:

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/6855

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Sorry to disappoint you, but....I've still gotta go with the Scientists.....over oil-execs AND columnists.

You "conservatives" never were into hiring/consulting competent-people....as is evidenced by the last-eight-years.​

 

[Pidgey]

Sorry to disappoint you, but....I've still gotta go with the Scientists.....over oil-execs AND columnists.

You "conservatives" never were into hiring/consulting competent-people....as is evidenced by the last-eight-years.​

...which appears to mean that you don't have a substantial answer.

Sorry, I'm not a conservative, I'm a liberal by definition--I can't help it if you're not that educated about what the terms really mean. We definitely don't want to and cannot preserve the status quo at this point. My impression of your postings is that they never really seem to convey any message other than... malignant emotion, but I'd guess that your idea of the future is going to get one helluva' rude awakening in time.