CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
Profile
Posts: 20460
PostPosted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 11:01 am
 


[web]http://break.com/index/tough-to-argue.html[/web]


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 4229
PostPosted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 11:15 am
 


Seems to be really the same old point that the proponents of man induced climate change have been making for some time and boils down to: short term pain for long term gain.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 11362
PostPosted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 2:16 pm
 


yup, good find


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1405
PostPosted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 2:19 pm
 


Saw this earlier today, good video.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
Profile
Posts: 10896
PostPosted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 2:31 pm
 


I like added bonus features.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 4805
PostPosted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 2:40 pm
 


Heres the problem with his arguement....

Every decade or so the eco-hysteria industry comes up with a new scare, this is called the cry wolf syndrome. People get tired of "experts" in this case who are telling us what the weather is going to be like a decade or two from now, but can't even nail the forecast 2 days from now. The problem with the eco-hysteria cry wolf syndrome is that one day we may need to actually pay heed, but from what I've read it appears to me, whats warming up our planet is, now hold on, this may be a shocker.... its not humans and our "carbon footprints" but the sun.

So according to his arguement every ten years or so, when the alarm bells start ringing. We should be making drastic changes no matter what, so we can say just in case ? That may prove to be a little costly dont ya think ?

Sorry bud that's not a silver bullet.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 4229
PostPosted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 2:46 pm
 


Bodah Bodah:
So according to his arguement every ten years or so, when the alarm bells start ringing. We should be making drastic changes no matter what, so we can say just in case ?


Incredible that some posters here regard this type of thinking as insightful and revolutionary in its approach.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1240
PostPosted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 8:40 pm
 


I like his reasoning because he's putting some very good logic behind his arguement.

Regardless, the world is warming. You can debate if we did it or nature did, but it is warming. How about we just fix the problem? Send up giant solar shades and reduce the amount of sunlight that reaches Earth? 8)


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 11362
PostPosted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 9:52 pm
 


Bodah Bodah:
Heres the problem with his arguement....

Every decade or so the eco-hysteria industry comes up with a new scare, this is called the cry wolf syndrome. People get tired of "experts" in this case who are telling us what the weather is going to be like a decade or two from now, but can't even nail the forecast 2 days from now. The problem with the eco-hysteria cry wolf syndrome is that one day we may need to actually pay heed, but from what I've read it appears to me, whats warming up our planet is, now hold on, this may be a shocker.... its not humans and our "carbon footprints" but the sun.

So according to his arguement every ten years or so, when the alarm bells start ringing. We should be making drastic changes no matter what, so we can say just in case ? That may prove to be a little costly dont ya think ?

Sorry bud that's not a silver bullet.


Except for the fact that there isn't an "eco-hysteria" issue that comes up every decade or so, at least not one that was actred on then has proved false.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
Profile
Posts: 5737
PostPosted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 10:23 pm
 


$1:
Personally, I always thought the whole global warming thing was a little bit overblown. Got to admit this guy makes a very compelling argument without debating any details.


Yeah! Details are Inconvenient Truths.

Ever notice these guys all make the same pronouncement about CO2 AGW being a given and then proceed from there.

The problem is the same elements, even the same individuals, not long back were predicting an ICE AGE. The sceptics/critics of that fallacy are todays CO2 AGW critics/deniers.

Ecofreaks 0 for 0..... deniers 1 of I. I'll back the winners.

It does not help that KYOTO, the plan to remedy this myth, is more political than scientific/ecological.

I was patiently waiting for the "hockey stick" graph.........so many disappointments.

:roll:


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 4229
PostPosted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 10:34 pm
 


sandorski sandorski:
Bodah Bodah:
Heres the problem with his arguement....

Every decade or so the eco-hysteria industry comes up with a new scare, this is called the cry wolf syndrome. People get tired of "experts" in this case who are telling us what the weather is going to be like a decade or two from now, but can't even nail the forecast 2 days from now. The problem with the eco-hysteria cry wolf syndrome is that one day we may need to actually pay heed, but from what I've read it appears to me, whats warming up our planet is, now hold on, this may be a shocker.... its not humans and our "carbon footprints" but the sun.

So according to his arguement every ten years or so, when the alarm bells start ringing. We should be making drastic changes no matter what, so we can say just in case ? That may prove to be a little costly dont ya think ?

Sorry bud that's not a silver bullet.


Except for the fact that there isn't an "eco-hysteria" issue that comes up every decade or so, at least not one that was actred on then has proved false.


Well, there was the DDT scare whose junk science spawned the environmental movement and resulted in the deaths of millions of people in the third world. DDT as being harmful to the environment was recently proven to be bunk.

Then of course there was the Global Cooling for about a decade during the late 60s through the 70s. It was about 8 years or so of exceptionally cold weather with lots more snow then normal and scientists were predicting another ice age. Us middle agers remember the hysteria of Global Cooling when we were kids.

Can't forget about the great overpopulation scare. In fact, we as a planet were supposed to have run out of resources and people were supposed to be starving in the streets, mass political unrest, disease etc. And that was supposed to happen if we hit an unimaginable 4 billion souls. The Earth was also predicted not to be able to feed the planet and that if humanity was to survive into the 21st century we would have to turn to living and farming under the ocean or soylent green. (They actually taught this in school as fact, the oceans part that is).

What else comes to mind?

Acid rain, ozone layer, soil sterlisation, West Nile virus, Nuclear winter, killer bees, disappearing whales, etc etc.

When you can argue that your tractor idling on a farm in northern Manitoba is adversely affecting the people of Mongolia and that an international CO2 sharing commission such as Kyoto administered by the UN is the only way to save the planet you embolden the left too far in their quest for a one world government.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
Profile
Posts: 22594
PostPosted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 5:50 am
 


The same, inexcapable conclusion is only half of the developing world is talking about this. China, India, Pakistan and many others have simply written this off.

If this is a global problem, how does it benefit us to protect only one half of it?


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 40 posts ]  1  2  3  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.