DescentBB

.....global warming is a theory.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/bus ... r/9506821/

No....man made global warming is a theory.

the theory is that paying tax to the UN for our carbon footprint, while exempting India, China and other high polluters, will somehow reduce the overall effect of human contribution to warming. that is a very weak theory. and as long as scientist allow their work to be co-opted by political extortionist the debate will be strong.

So predictable…the new tactic is to shift from the “science” to health costs and effects that will be felt here at home…and good ole slick falls right in line.

I also guess the USAToday folks forgot about the dust bowl back before global warming was even thought about.

except that much of the problem in the 1920s-30s was due to much less severe drought coupled with really bad subsistence farming practices.
The palpable stench of ideological denial in the face of growing numbers of uneasy facts about the climate around you all is pretty obvious, fellas.

Spidey wrote:So predictable…the new tactic is to shift from the “science” to health costs and effects that will be felt here at home…and good ole slick falls right in line.

Oh great, now we have water shortages? Can't Obama do anything right? Geez. The only reason we have drought is because liberals.

Because liberals what? Or is that your best sigma imitation…

You don't see the irony in the title?

Because liberals. They ruin everything. That's why drought.

vision wrote:Because liberals. They ruin everything.

You got part of it right.

But, in fact, 'liberals' really aren't truly liberal. They're zealous ideologues that rival the Taliban in ruthlessness, intolerance and hypocrisy.

If you don't tow the party line- you're a 'denier,' a backward backwater luddite- and not only that- but an ENEMY.

callmeslick wrote:except that much of the problem in the 1920s-30s was due to much less severe drought coupled with really bad subsistence farming practices.
The palpable stench of ideological denial in the face of growing numbers of uneasy facts about the climate around you all is pretty obvious, fellas.

Your ideological excuses are what really smell. Farming practices only exacerbated a bad climate condition"

"What circumstances conspired to cause the Dust Bowl? Economic depression coupled with extended drought, unusually high temperatures, poor agricultural practices and the resulting wind erosion all contributed to making the Dust Bowl. "
http://science.howstuffworks.com/enviro ... -cause.htm

Once again you try and give us a un-knowledgeable statement as fact .

woodchip wrote:Once again you try and give us a un-knowledgeable statement as fact.

The article you linked to confirms what slick said. You only put the parts you like in red. Just because the text is red doesn't mean it is more true now! Haha.

vision wrote:

woodchip wrote:Once again you try and give us a un-knowledgeable statement as fact.

The article you linked to confirms what slick said. You only put the parts you like in red. Just because the text is red doesn't mean it is more true now! Haha.

You are either amazingly slow witted or you are desperate to back up slick. Let me explain it so someone like you can understand it. If there was not a extended drought and high temperatures, there would not of been a dust bowl. Now stop being a obtuse troll and try to give a intelligent reply next time.

right you are, but the levels of temp and drought were not as severe nor as widespread as where we're currently heading. Luckily, we manage both land and water resources far better. It is YOU that is missing the point, or avoiding it, Woody.

woodchip wrote:If there was not a extended drought and high temperatures, there would not of been a dust bowl.

AND, as slick mentioned, the reason why there was a dust bowl had everything to do with terrible agricultural practices. This is why we didn't have a dust bowl during the drought in the 50's and why we don't have one now even though the we are in the middle of an intense years-long dry spell that rivals the droughts of the 30's and 50's. We are a lot better at agriculture and managing resources.

Will Robinson wrote:the theory is that paying tax to the UN for our carbon footprint, while exempting India, China and other high polluters, will somehow reduce the overall effect of human contribution to warming. that is a very weak theory. and as long as scientist allow their work to be co-opted by political extortionist the debate will be strong.

callmeslick wrote:The palpable stench of ideological denial in the face of growing numbers of uneasy facts about the climate around you all is pretty obvious, fellas.

You both agree on the problem: The whole global warming "debate" is a giant political & ideological tool. We're really fighting about politics... because nobody but James J. Lee is interested in calling for what really needs to be done if we're going to be fully consistent about preventing global warming. Some people insist of equating their political agenda with science, and seem to be baffled when the rest of the world calls their bluff.

So.... yes, we all agree that humans are having a large impact of our earth (in whatever form you want to advocate: global warming, climate change, cutting down rain forests, or too much flatulence) ... now, the questions is: what should we do about it, and that's a political/ideological question.

well put, Snoopy.