Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 83585

Wow--where to start, where to start...?

First, the arguement. Climate change is inherent on this planet. Proof? 10,000 years ago, the entire planet was in the throws of a global ice age. Without the assistance of man, that ice--which was over 1 mile in depth over NYC--melted. All this without the assistance of man or observations by Al Gore. As it turns out, both the planets Mars and Saturn have experienced global warming at exactly the same time we did. How do we know this? NASA was good enough to provide global orbiters which amongst many beautiful photos, provided extraordinarily accurate temperature readings. Now, I'm no Bill Nye, but what could be the cause of global warming/cooling on a solar system wide scale. Hummm? Could it be...the sun? Add to this that Global warming/climate change "scientists" have been manipulating numbers to inflict odious taxes on the population (by the way--there is your motive) and there you have it; the world's greatest fraud.

No one, not a single person I know of either political stripe likes pollution and waste, but this eco-con artistry is more than that. It is not based on science, but statist political ambition, funded by carbon tax. Tax just for breathing.

Bill Nye is the second aguement that could be made here. Nye gets some funding by--wait for it--the public trough. That's right, he gets money from the government. The government wants money from us. Does anyone see--at the very least--a conflict of interest. Further, while Bill Nye is has training--primarily as an engineer, he is no atmospheric scientist. So basically, this interview would be like getting a botanist to discuss open heart surgery in humans. He isn't qualified. Just like Al Gore isn't qualified. A polical science major does not an atmospheric scientist make.

The facts of our climate are quite the opposite of the picture painted by the global warm--no, wait--climate change con artists. The earth has been cooling, globally since 1998. While there are pockets of hot weather, the trend is definitely towards colder temps. It does not take a savant like Gore, to figure out that something has to cool the atmosphere in order for it to snow at all. You folks have any idea what that "something" might be? My money is on the sun. Which brings us to the study of that blazing hot orb. The study of the sun (also compliments of NASA), have revealed a marked reduction in sunspots, a year's absence in fact. To those not knowledgeable about the study of the Heliosphere, this roughly translated means the sun is cooling a little. This year we've also posted record low temperatures, planet wide.

Al may have made a nice fictional movie, publicly funded scientists want to see us taxed and the left wing media like Madow might want us to support this agenda using pseudo scientific arguments, but now that we see what they're up to we're saying, "NO!". On a personal level, I'm also saying, "Al--eat my shorts."

Gandhi's Fist , Breitbart 58 Comments [9/3/2011 4:13:40 AM]
Fundie Index: 28
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2 3
Extraintrovert

I like the part where he argues that Nye and Gore aren't qualified to speak on the subject because they aren't climate scientists, and then goes ahead and ignores everything actual climate scientists say on the subject anyway. I also like the part where he argues that the government and others have a financial interest in perpetuating climate change, but refuses to realise/acknowledge that the oil/coal/gas industries would have a financial interest in denying/ignoring climate change. Seeing such blatant hypocrisy is, to me at least, more entertaining than seeing only the blatant insanity that is common on this site.

9/3/2011 4:51:02 AM

aaa

Something tells me that you are severely unqualified to talk about anything science. Seriously, i want to know if you even understand what the Greenhouse effect is.

9/3/2011 6:16:17 AM

Brendan Rizzo

So you're saying that we should play into the oil companies' hands, then? How do you explain that it is only very recently that we have had decades of consecutive record high temperature years, and more hurricanes now than ever in recorded history?

9/3/2011 8:12:18 AM



Your orthography makes me wonder what your sources are.

9/3/2011 9:02:53 AM

J. James

My favorite part is when he pretends like humans are incapable of changing the environment- WHEN THAT'S THE DEFINING CHARACTERISTIC OF OUR SPECIES!! Ostriches are swift herbivores, boars are opportunistic omnivores, spiders are trap-weaving carnivores, AND HUMANS CHANGE THE ENVIRONMENT. It's the ONE THING that sets us apart.

Jesus fucking Christ, has he even SEEN a picture of the planet at nighttime? Does he even KNOW how many billions of acres of forest humanity has destroyed? Has he ever flown in an airplane, and seen the vast changes we have wrought on our planet?

To be sure, it's mostly a good thing. Aside from the odd species going extinct every now and then early in our history- Dodos, Steller's Sea Cows, Thylacines, etc. and the occasional accident like what happened to poor, poor New Zealand- we've had to face remarkably few consequences for our actions, considering how drastic they are. Today, we're much better about protecting species as well. We MUST keep our atmosphere in check, just like we learned to protect species, and our food and water. Sure, there's still a LONG-ASS way to go, but first we must dispose of THIS attitude above.

9/3/2011 9:35:10 AM

His4Life

I don't trust Bill Nye - just a gut instinct. My kids wanted to watch his old television show, Bill Nye the Science Guy, when they were little, and I felt a strong pull from the Lord not to let that program be played in my house. I don't know much about Nye's personal life, but he came across as kind of a pervert on the TV show, with hints of homosexual mannerisms. There was also a gay man in a mouse costume, if I remember correctly, with implied "furry lifestyle" undertones.

9/3/2011 11:07:18 AM

His4Life

Actually, I was mistaken. The children's science show I'm thinking of was called "Beakman's World." I watched a few episodes with my kids when they were younger, and it was a very chaotic show. I could never figure out what was going on, and there was homoerotic overtones to some of the behaviors the characters adopted. Not a fan of Mr. Wizard either, since Wizardry implies occultism, not science. IIRC, Bill Nye was actually a pretty good show for introducing kids to science, although I wish he hadn't taken his career into global warming.

9/3/2011 11:16:05 AM

J. James

@His4Life

And what, pray tell, is wrong with Global Warming?

9/3/2011 11:16:46 AM

Greater Good

You dare insult Bill Nye the Science Guy? Blasphemy!

9/3/2011 12:19:09 PM



So the Earth has experienced cyclical climate variations over the last 2andabit million years. What's your point? The current warming trends are a statistically significant departure from the natural cycles linked to the glacial/interglacial periods. You don't like the political solutions, fine. But you can't put your fingers in your ears and say "lalalaalalalalala" and make the evidence go away.

9/3/2011 1:27:21 PM

His4Life

J. James, nothing as a concept, but the way it is presented is being used to further a political agenda in my opinion. Global warming/climate change is a natural process that our Earth passes through periodically.

9/3/2011 2:48:22 PM

nazani14

Let's pretend that the earth is not getting hotter. We'd still need to be concerned about the acidification of the oceans, and all the pollutants in the atmosphere, and the logical way to combat those problems is to stop using fossil fuels.
However:
This animation illustrates the general warming that has occurred from 1990 to 2006. Click the play button to see how the hardiness zones have changed.
http://www.arborday.org/media/mapchanges.cfm

9/3/2011 3:39:33 PM

J. James

@His4Life

Yes, yes, cycles do happen. But the OP said so too, and I tore into that pretty damn well if I do say so myself. See my comment above.

There IS a difference between what happened tens of thousands of years ago during the Ice age(and the twenty some-odd ice ages before that) and what is happening now.



The difference is us. Our actions DO have consequences- and those actions include cutting down more than half of the ENTIRE WORLD'S forests, polluting, and exploitation, and the consequences are poisoned populations, extinctions, starvation, climate change, crop failure, water wars, and other such nastiness that cause untold millions of deaths and untold trillions of dollars of unneccessary damages. It is a fact beyond questioning that we alter our environment.

The good news is, humans can change the environment for the better, not just for the worse, and fortunately the steps to do so are relatively easy compared to the awful alternatives. I fail to see the politics behind insuring humanity's survival. There's nothing political about it, it's just something that needs to be done in one way or another. The semantics, maybe, but the issue itself transcends politics.

9/3/2011 4:11:34 PM

His4Life

Ok, so if what you say is true, what do you propose the solution is?

9/3/2011 4:59:43 PM

J. James

@His4Life

We're already halfway there. Just a few decades ago, industry, individuals and governments were completely unchecked and polluted easily 10-100 times more than they do today. But that's only in developed nations. China, India, Africa, etc. are all polluted and have burgeoning populations leading to inevitable resource wars in the unnervingly near future. Still, we aren't exactly saintly, the USA is one of the largest single polluters in the entire world.

The only thing guaranteed to lower the birth rate and correlated environmental degradation is a higher standard of living, but the chances of that happening to nations with impending ecological catastrophe are vanishingly slim- as it stands today.

In short, the solution is for developed nations- the USA, Germany, the UK- to develop green infrastructure just like Depression-era America did in the 1930s, in the process creating jobs. But this time, the infrastructure won't be exclusively local, because we must develop the technology to make it economically viable for developing nations as well. This means some pain, particularly for the fossil fuel industry, but it will also bring relief in the form of new jobs and a secure future, rather than an economy built on the fickle whims of a disappearing, non-renewable resource. This is largely apolitical, unless you're an oil shill, in which case you MAKE it political.

9/3/2011 7:10:07 PM

Sadhuman

I am not fully convinced about global warming, I too think it works in cycles and is a natural thing. However I am damn convinced that humans are making it worse, that unchecked companies will be happy to wreck the world in the long term for the short term gain and that we need to regulate and against this.

Gandhi's Fist (oh the irony) you are a nutter to willing to see Government hunting down your money and try to hide the truth. Go out into the real world for awhile.

9/3/2011 10:00:50 PM

zipperback

Steve Scolnik at Capital Climate analyzed the data from NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center and found U.S. heat records in June outnumbered cold records by 2706 to 251 — nearly 11 to 1:

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/07/07/262678/its-obscenely-hot-june-2011-heat-records/


9/4/2011 12:00:19 AM

Pioneer

Honestly, I wish this was true. I wish some politicians would stand up and say "lol j/k, global warming is fake, we did it for cash". That way I could at least stop feeling wholly responsible for the problem.

9/4/2011 2:09:53 AM

farpadokly

Breathtaking arrogance and ignorance here. The carbon tax is for industry and energy emissions, not for breathing. No one is going to be able to put a tax on breathing, idiot.
Part of global warming is climate instability and extreme weather events. An effect of overall global warming can also be cooling over some areas. It's counter-intuitive but not that hard to grasp.

9/4/2011 2:40:40 AM



I don't understand. He says outright that we all like a clean planet with little pollution; such a planet would have life thriving, be a healthier place to live, all that good stuff. And then says that he doesn't want to change. Just... whaaaa..?


It seems to me its a lot like Pascal's Wager, only it makes more sense. We've got, at the extreme, two courses - do something about climate change, or do nothing. And we have a binary fact about reality. Either climate change is real and a problem, or it is not. So we have four potential outcomes.

Do nothing and climate change is real: Well, fuck. We're fucked. Didn't think that one through well, did we?

Do nothing and climate change is either exaggerated or a myth: Okay, we continue the current, not ideal, status quo. Until we run out of oil.

Do something and climate change is real: We might actually have averted a catastrophe. Or not, but dammit wouldn't it be good to at least try?

Do something and climate change is not real: The planet is healthier, we get more sustainable energy, fewer species go extinct, we needn't go to war for oil (as much)...


Yeah, so... that's why I have a hard time understanding why anyone not involved directly with the energy industry wouldn't want to assume climate change is real and attempt to do something about it.

9/4/2011 4:03:25 AM

LV426

@His4Life

Okay, so this is a bit off topic, but this caught me so off balance that I just have to remark on it. (Besides, everything else you said has already been well rebutted.)

Did you seriously just go the "furry lifestyle" route? Scare quotes included? Really? So there was a guy in an animal costume on a children's show whom you perceive, due to a hallucinatory order from your Lord, to be gay? So what? I'd be willing to bet that a good half of all children's entertainment involves anthropomorphism in some way.

Don't let your kids watch any of those awful Disney movies! Or even breakfast cereal commercials! Don't let them anywhere near those horrible Ninja Turtles. And never ever let them look at a sports mascot. Why, those are practically fursuiters! /sarcasm

By the way, all the anthropomorphism you find in children's entertainment is, yes, a large part of where the furry fandom comes from, but just because some people who enjoy an aesthetic in their youth continue to enjoy that aesthetic as adults doesn't make it some kind of bizarre conspiratorial furry recruitment program.

I know, I've gone on way too long about one tiny offhand remark, but I've seen a fair amount of fundie-based anti-furry stuff lately, which strikes me as odd. (And also very silly. It's difficult to maintain the dramatic impact of devils and hellfire when the object of your hatred is a cartoon animal.) It's almost as if some of these idiots are starting to realize that their hatred of gays is getting less acceptable, and they're looking to internet trolls to figure out who to hate next. You silly silly people.


9/4/2011 5:37:40 AM



LV426,

Thanks for your comments. The problem that I have with the "furry lifestyle" is that much of it is sexual in nature and tends to ape bestiality, which is forbidden by the Bible and illegal to boot. I don't have a problem with my kids watching TV shows that depict animals in human ways. We loved classic Disney movies when they were growing up. The problem with this science show was that the depiction went beyond it being simply a talking animal or a person in an animal costume, with a mask covering their face. In this case, the character is clearly a middle-aged man dressed up as a mouse, and no attempt is made to disguise the fact that it is a grown man in the costume, telegraphing the idea that it's normal and acceptable for an adult man to embrace this lifestyle: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_T8d72tMGz9Y/TP6Hk493iFI/AAAAAAAAA8E/5JhiavuKhFc/s1600/Mark%2BRitts.jpg

I think it all comes down to discernment. You have to take it case by case. Sometimes an animal is just an innocent character; other times (as in this case) there's something not right going on and you have to draw a line in the sand.

9/4/2011 8:27:26 AM



So you think that virtually every climatologist worldwide is in on the hoax? Wow, this is definitely a CSTDT.
Also, a carbon tax is not "a tax on breathing."

9/4/2011 10:21:14 AM

J. James

@His4Life/1328931

Don't be ridiculous. You're so desperate for a crusade, you're reading WAY too far into things that have NOTHING TO DO WITH SEX. NOTHING!! For fuck's sake, you're just as bad as people trying to project sexuality on MUPPETS! A man wearing a mouse costume on A KID'S SHOW is not a endorsement for bestiality!!

Jesus fuckmothering Christ, we shouldn't have to explain this to you people. Your filthy minds are NOT a legitimate basis for a ruling on a show's appropriateness. Before we know it, the likes of you will be harassing Veggie Tales for implying inter-vegetable sex.

Just SHUT UP. Please. Just SHUT THE FUCK UP. Your constant sexualization and perversion of completely innocuous, innocent things is messing up your children.

9/4/2011 10:24:29 AM

LV426

@His4Life/1328931

Guess what, I'm a furry.

Guess what, I'm not a zoophile.

I don't own a costume. I don't go around acting like an animal. I don't indulge in any of the bizarre behaviors or perversions you lot so often attach to us, which are, interestingly enough, the same ones you always attach to homosexuality.

I think you'll find that most of us are as strongly against bestiality and pedophilia as most everyone else. Yes, some sectors of the furry community are probably more open (more so than most of us would like) about sexuality and some bizarre fetishes than most groups, and that hasn't been great for PR. Bizarre and immoral are not always automatically the same thing, however, nor are they representative of the greater whole.

It is no more fair for you to insinuate that we're all closeted zoophiles just because you can dig up some nasty porn than it would be for me to insinuate that all Christians are closeted pedophiles because of a few Catholic priests. The only difference is that we're a more socially acceptable target.

I looked at that picture. I don't think that character at all telegraphs that it's "acceptable for an adult man to embrace that lifestyle". In fact, I don't think that telegraphs anything at all. I think you're being paranoid, seeing spectres where there are none, making incorrect inferences. That character's appearance is no more an endorsement of bestiality than Harry Potter is of Satanism. Not at all. I don't know where your type gets the idea that everything depicted in fiction is automatically an endorsement for anything, let alone these sinister added layers that only you lot can see. I can only hypothesize that these irrational fears stem from the inability of the religious to actually tell fantasy from reality.

Other than that, pretty much everything J. James just said.

9/4/2011 12:17:00 PM
1 2 3