Using their own tools against them….

Like this one!

It would be a whole lot easier for me to believe that Global Warming was a problem if the earth’s climate wasn’t cooling at the rate of 6 degrees Celsius per century like it has since 1998.

An absurd question.

First of all would you need to “prove” something that was “highly deterimental” with tricks of science? Would that not be self evident? If so, is man made global warming self evident in that way?

Why no it isn’t. At best its a trick of science and we already have information that much of the data collected was in error due to sensors not being place correctly.

The evidence comes no where near pointing to “deterimental”.

Secondly the idea of things that happen on this earth having an impact on climate being normal and that normal being seen by changing climates to both warmer and colder is assumed to be bad or deterimental. Climate and temps have changed on the earth for a very long time and are going to continue to change. We do not want climate and temps to stay the same. Change is a good thing in terms of life and that includes temp changes.

The idea that mankind is going to win the day, either in a good way or a bad way, over the earth is absurd. Its the other way around.

We need to be good stewards of the earth’s resources. You bet. That does not mean the politics and the psuedo-science behind global warming is sound nor that the governance desired by the global warming camp is a good thing.

On July 12th, 2009 at 10:04 am, ThackerAgency said:
If the “normal” changes, caused by man, are found to be highly detrimental to continued life on planet Earth, should we still attempt to change nothing?

I believe it is a little haughty for man to believe he has that significant an impact on world climate. I found an article that says basically the same thing. An exerpt here:

So go on then, Prof. What makes you sure that you’re right and all those scientists out there saying the opposite are wrong? ‘I’m a geologist. We geologists have always recognised that climate changes over time. Where we differ from a lot of people pushing AGW is in our understanding of scale. They’re only interested in the last 150 years. Our time frame is 4,567 million years. So what they’re doing is the equivalent of trying to extrapolate the plot of Casablanca from one tiny bit of the love scene. And you can’t. It doesn’t work.’

http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/3755623/meet-the-man-who-has-exposed-the-great-climate-change-con-trick.thtml

On July 11th, 2009 at 2:40 pm, jsmiddleton4 said:
“I am not sold on the idea that man is responsible for climate change.”

This is how we on the right get ourselves into trouble. The issue is not does man have an impact on the climate. We do. It is absurd to believe we do not. All living and even some non-living things have an impact on the climate.

By making the argument “Does man impact climate change… Is man responsible for global warming…” we allow the argument to change from something that does not support Al Gore and the enviromnental whackos TO an argument that ends up supporting Al Gore.

The question is NOT do human beings impact the climate. The question is, is the impact NORMAL.

And the answer is YES, climate changes. Climate changing is normal. There is nothing to “fix”.

If the “normal” changes, caused by man, are found to be highly detrimental to continued life on planet Earth, should we still attempt to change nothing?

On July 12th, 2009 at 7:59 am, ThackerAgency said:
I looked up the Butterfield guy from NC on that site. His site claims he’s a black guy from down east. But he’s the whitest black guy I’ve ever seen according to the picture. . . check out his bio page with his picture:

Michael Jackson was whiter. lol