Those silly, wacky CANADIANS are so much fun!
@redyellowblackdog (10629)
United States
August 21, 2008 7:02am CST
Yes, it is true.
In Canada, those silly wacky fun Canadians have published an article debunking man made global warming. Why, what is wrong with those silly gooses?
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/4511
More info about the man made global warming fraud.
http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTYwMjRiZjJhMmUxYWE2MmQ0NDZhOGM0M2Q3ZWUzMmE
I say it is time for the man made global warming crowd to quit lambasting those who oppose their theory of man made global warming as 'lunatics', 'deniers', 'anti-science', 'fools', or any other similar derogatory terms. The science is not settled. There is plenty of doubt about all this.
What do you say?
4 people like this
8 responses
@James72 (26790)
• Australia
21 Aug 08
What?? Shouldn't the Canadians be making maple syrup or playing hockey or something instead?? Where did they find the time for this? There are always conflicting theories in science and it is these conflicts that will allow the truth to eventually be found. The fact of the matter is that we humans and our lifespans are but a mere millisecond in terms of the age of the earth. Who is to say that the planet is not just going through it's phases without even the slightest concern towards our inputs? I do believe myself that we are certainly not helping in any way in terms of pollution, ozone layer depletion and salinity issues etc but there are still no definitive links that state categorically that these contributions speed up anything like the mean temperature of our planet..... The more they argue amongst themselves the closer we will get to true understanding so I say let them at it!
3 people like this
@redyellowblackdog (10629)
• United States
21 Aug 08
Yes, science should be about conflicting theories, not name calling. I went searching for some of the latest thoughts on man made global warming because of some recent name calling in a man made global warming thread. What the heck, I thought, maybe the latest thinking is that there is something to man made global warming. Nope, the best most recent thought and science, in my opinion, is still that man made global warming is negilible.
Negilible = urinating in the ocean raises the ocean levels proportionally about the same man affects the temperature of the earth.
BTW: Did you ever see the response where I calculated the amount the oceans would rise if all of humanity urinated simutanously into the oceans?
3 people like this
@uath13 (8192)
• United States
21 Aug 08
Yea, a man urinating in the ocean doesn't make much of a difference , except to that crab in the water right beside it.... Doubt he's happy about it.
Even if man is only making a slight effect on global warming don't you thing that our grandkids/great grandkids/ great great grandkids would be thankful for the few extra days they might have before the earth become uninhabitable if we were to cut down on our effect?
Lets not become wanton tree huggers about it though. You don't have to go completely from one end to the other.
4 people like this
@redyellowblackdog (10629)
• United States
21 Aug 08
James72,
Yes, I started with the circumfrence of the earth to estimate the total surface area. Then estimated the total water area surface using that 2/3 of earth's surface is ocean. Then estimated one urination volume. Estimate there are 6 billion people and then the rest is simple. The answer is about .0000006 inches but, in fact, because of the input of the sun causing evaporation the real answer is zero. The object is to point out the interactive effect of complex dynamic systems and how the man made global warming crowd is not allowing for that.
The funny thing about all this is that even in the IPCC report, if you read it closely, they always allude to the fact that there can be unknown interactive effects not yet studied. Or in other words, "We don't know, really!"
2 people like this
@Destiny007 (5805)
• United States
21 Aug 08
I completely agree.
There is no such thing as "settled science". and science by consensus is not science, it is a political agenda.
Global Warming/Climate Change is a political agenda, and the facts do not bear out the claims made by those who are driving this agenda.
What else is there to say?
2 people like this
@redyellowblackdog (10629)
• United States
21 Aug 08
Well, you are right that it has been all pretty much said for now. It is just that when a degreed meterologist who almost has his M.S. , too, tells you that you're wrong, it is time to check on a few things. I've checked. I'm not wrong yet.
1 person likes this
@redyellowblackdog (10629)
• United States
21 Aug 08
Yes, it will be many more years before enough accurate satellite data has accumulated to seriously conclude what is going on with the earth's temperature. Intelligent objective people have pointed out we really only have accurate measurement of the earth's temperature since about 1970. Before that temperature was taken with just mecury thermometers at not necessarily the best locations for a representative recording of the overall earth average. So, yes, the objective intelligent amoung us are not getting excited yet.
1 person likes this
@calcynic (433)
• United States
21 Aug 08
So far, the "facts" on either side add up to "theory". Such is the scientific process. Hopefully, the tech will advance to the point that we can rule out the speculation and be left with facts. Despite the potential gravity of the situation, the politically driven arguments, on both sides, is getting tedious.
1 person likes this
@clrumfelt (5490)
• United States
21 Aug 08
I thought everyone would have figured out by now that the global warming falaices have been created by a vast left-wing conspiracy so that they can blame even the bad weather on President Bush and other right-wing politicians. The trouble is, they have managed to convince the whole world that these falacies are true (even the Nobel Committee) so that now no one wants to listen to the scientific voice of reason about it. They are all too busy now trying to figure out how they are going to save the planet from an nonexistent enemy.
@redyellowblackdog (10629)
• United States
21 Aug 08
There is darn good money in getting people angry and all worked up. Anger deludes people. Then they are easier to cheat out of money. That is what is going on.
2 people like this
@redyellowblackdog (10629)
• United States
21 Aug 08
And... Nobel prize and millions of dollars!
1 person likes this
@twallace (2675)
• United States
21 Aug 08
I'm not a scientist but you have to admit that the planet is trying to tell mankind something. If they keep using up all the natural resources of the planet one of the days they will be all gone and then what will mankind do. If you don't give the planet time to rejuvinate it's self what will happen. Just like animals some are wiped out and done by man for the love of hunting. So I don't knock what they say to some degree they could be right. Now lets just say if they are right and people keep ignoring what they have to say. Then what when it to late you can't say they didn't tell you.
2 people like this
@redyellowblackdog (10629)
• United States
21 Aug 08
Certainly, the earth has limited resources. We do need to conserve. However, and this is important, the need to conserve has absolutely nothing to do with keeping the earth from getting too hot. Our use of carbon based fuels has no effect in any meaningful way on the temperature of the earth. We need to conserve to protect our own existence, not to save the earth.
For some reason I do not understand, some man made global warming advocates think I'm arguing against conservation and for pollution when I point out man is not heating up the earth. Let me be clear. I am for conservation (waste is always bad) and against pollution (toxicity kills people).
1 person likes this
@calcynic (433)
• United States
21 Aug 08
I heartily agree with the idea that the research is a work in progress, and that the verdict is far from in. So far, politically, figures lie and liars figure. I hate to see something so potentially significant reduced to a rock fight between the right and the left. My gut tells me that there is something to man made warming, but I wouldn't lay off any bets on it. It's sorta like baptizing my kids; I don't believe in a hereafter, but I might be wrong, so I covered the bases for them. I'm not going overboard, though. Every time I start the car, I don't run into the yard and plant a tree. Come to think of it, I've never hugged one except to keep from falling out of my treefort.
A vast left wing conspiracy has been mentioned; blaming Bush for the weather. This smacks of the same paranoia as when Hillary cited a vast right wing conspiracy against Bill. These are loud voices on either side, screaming above the din, not the bulk of liberals or conservatives. If I were to spout these theories to a neutral shrink, I'd be filling a Haldol prescription before the day was out. Foaming at the mouth, by either side, makes the words hard to understand and trivializes the whole issue.
1 person likes this
@redyellowblackdog (10629)
• United States
21 Aug 08
I've decided the main thing to do is be suspicious of anyone who tries to make you mad. That includes fanatics on the right and left.
1 person likes this
@calcynic (433)
• United States
21 Aug 08
Yeah...once, on another discussion site, I was trying to argue a point on an intelligent, factual level. My adversary just kept calling me a left wing commie, a dirtbag from the 60's, etc. I never once flamed him, and, trying to gracefully bow out, I said, You go your way, I'll go mine, and never the twain shall meet. He then called me an idiot for changing the discussion to "Trains". AARGH!
2 people like this
@spokesman (84)
• United States
21 Aug 08
I am bothered that all the bickering between the two groups only distracts from the real issue: the planet IS getting warmer, and what are WE going to do about it.
Whether or not global warming is man-made does not absolve us of the responsibility for being good stewards of the earth. Our society is driven by a "Use it now" mentality. Those who do seek solutions are labeled as "crazy environmentalists" or "tree-huggers" by ultra-conservatives whose only care and concern has always been fattening their own wallets. They reason that if the earth becomes too hot to inhabit I won't be here so who cares?
Whether or not we have made the planet hotter, I can't say. I can say that man, through irresponsibility, has harmed the environment.
2 people like this
@redyellowblackdog (10629)
• United States
21 Aug 08
For sure, the planet is getting hotter. All we can do about it is adapt. We are not causing it. True, we need to be better stewards of the planet. That is to keep the planet from becoming toxic, not too hot. We need to conserve to save life on earth, not the earth. Nothing the ultra conservatives say should be taken to mean that they only care about fattening their wallets. This is not true.
1 person likes this
@redyellowblackdog (10629)
• United States
23 Aug 08
Sounds like a great discussion, start it and notify me.
@spokesman (84)
• United States
22 Aug 08
I appreciate your intelligent posts. We need more of that on MyLot.
Unfortunately, I cannot agree with your opinion of conservatives. Every one that I personally know cares about little more than their own well-being. When you begin to talk about issues like the plight of the poor in this country they turn a deaf ear. We are in the midst of a war effort costing billions, which the conservatives in this country insist must continue, while children all over our great land will go to bed with hungry bellies tonight. This isn't right. I live in Louisiana where a recent bill in the legislature to enable more drilling and suspend the gas tax in order to reduce gas prices was voted down by conservatives who haven't bought a tank of gas in four years or more. You and I buy their gas, and, in this State at least, Big Oil means fat checks for special interest conservative politicians.
But, this is another discussion.
1 person likes this
@Lindalinda (4111)
• Canada
22 Aug 08
Eh? Silly and wacky?? It is true there are many opinions on global warming and he causes thereof. There is no doubt in my mind that the activities of us human beings contributes and or speeds up globbal warming. The scientists are not united on this but I think it is correct to sound the alarm bells so we can slow down the wanton waste of finite resources, and have an influence on global warming.
1 person likes this
@redyellowblackdog (10629)
• United States
22 Aug 08
YES: Slowing down the wanton waste of finite resources.
NO: Deluding ourselves into thinking we can heat up the planet.
In this case, 'silly' and 'wacky' are merely sarcasm. I completely agree with the linked articles and used the terms 'silly' and 'wacky' as an attempt at humor. Usually, I get called bad names for expressing similar opinions and was trying to make fun of those who call me names by using terms that were not negative but hopefully funny.
@speakeasy (4171)
• United States
21 Aug 08
If anyone should believe in global warming (regardless, of it's cause); you would think it would be the Canadians.
After all, last year was the first time in recorded history where there was a NAVIGABLE Northwest passage and it runs right along the Northern Canadian border. Or, do they believe someone went out with a bunch of heaters and extension cords and melted all that ice by hand? And, if they doubted the satelite photos - they could have made a trip north themselves and checked it out in person.
1 person likes this
@redyellowblackdog (10629)
• United States
22 Aug 08
Recorded history is but the blink of an eye in geologic time. The north passage has been open many many times in the past. Too many times to count, it just wasn't in recorded history. Anyone who points out to you that this is the first time in recorded history that passage has been open is either trying to deceive or is just repeating what they heard without realizing this is insignificant.
@speakeasy (4171)
• United States
22 Aug 08
Actually, the fact that this is the first time in recorded history, is significant. Even though this has occurred many times throughout the Earth's exceedingly long history; this marks a major departure from the current "norm".
There were very OLD legends about the Northwest passage existing a long time before history was recorded. But, this is the first time those legends have a basis in fact and have been proven true. This is proof that there ARE major changes taking place in the environment.
THAT is what is significant and it shows that we should be preparing for conditions we have never experienced before; but, only have geologic and palentologic "clues" about. For scientists these changes are allowing them to prove and disprove old theories and actaully learn more about how our planet works. I would say that is "significant".
1 person likes this
@calcynic (433)
• United States
21 Aug 08
I think the Canadians do believe in global warming...they just have their doubts over man-made. Almost everyone I listen to agrees that the earth is heating up; they just disagree on the cause. In my mind the jury is still out...not enough tech to prove either side's point.
We have a libertarian talk show host here in the BayArea who is billed as the smartest man in the world...Dr. Bill Wattenberg...and he claims that the warming itself is a farce and that there is nothing wrong with clear-cutting forests. That's just too much for me to swallow.