FACT: Obama's own SecDef and OWN Party Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman have stated UNEQUIVOCALLY that chemical weapons have been used in Syria..

For the record, I am not advocating action in Syria one way or the other.

ALL I am saying is that by ignoring his own Red Line, Obama is neutering himself and this country.

Our enemies AND our allies MUST know that we say what we mean and we mean what we say..

Next time Obama feels the need to issue a "red line" he is going to get laughed at..

Forget Syria..

That's simply a point that NO ONE can deny...

Michale

THIS is the kind of project that we REALLY need to get behind....

THIS is science at it's finest..

No fear-mongering.. No billions and billions spent on hot air IE Al Gore and Lobbyists and UN Crooks/Con-Artists..

Just PURE indisputable science...

But no one will get behind this because it means that morons like Gore and Mann and Hanson don't get dick...

Michale

It won't change the FACTS..

FACT: Obama said that use of chemical weapons was a "red line".

FACT: Obama's own SecDef and OWN Party Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman have stated UNEQUIVOCALLY that chemical weapons have been used in Syria..

ONLY LOGICAL CONCLUSION: Obama is a neutered coward who is afraid to take stand because he lacks moral courage..

If you dispute this, PROVIDE SOME RELEVANT FACTS OF YOUR OWN

You can't because you have none..

All you have is hysterical emotionalism.

Your entire slew of arguments are based on NOTHING but hysterical emotionalism...

Michale

I'm getting impatient, really need to get to war ASAP. Damn wimpy Emperor Cameron. How dare you actually take the time to confirm the intelligence and make an informed decision.

WE WANT RASH ACTS NOW! WE DEMAND IT. GO RASH OR GO HOME!

Or is it that you're happy they aren't being wiped out fast enough, that's why Obama must act NOW! Don't wait. Don't confirm the intelligence. Don't mobilise the international community. DO IT NOW GOD DAMN IT YOU PUSSY.

The media said it, so it must be true. Just ask President Romney or that Saudi terrorist or the many other terrorists (other than, you know, the actual real terrorists last week) that the media caught!

Rushing in didn't work before but I've got a good feeling about it this time. LET'S DO THIS!

aMURiCA!!!!!!

Now THAT is what you call "Dirty Pool" :D

Michale

His red line is a yellow stripe...

But it's OK.. I am sure you don't care that tens of thousands of Syrians have already died and potentially hundreds of thousands more will die from WMDs...

They are probably all terrorists anyways, so I can understand why you really don't give a rat's ass if they are brutally put down in one of the most horrific manners imaginable..

I am PROUD of you!! You are definitely well on your way to becoming a me... :D

Michale

Chemical weapons have been confirmed from MULTIPLE SOURCES to have been used..

Obama runs scared..

His red line is a yellow stripe...

"These are the facts. And they are undisputed."
-Captain Smilin Jack Ross, A FEW GOOD MEN

Speaking of Kevin Bacon.. Anyone catch the new FOX show THE FOLLOWING??

That's what TV *SHOULD* be...

AWESOME show...

Michale

What he should do is invade, without being back by the UN. Don't raise taxes, or do anything to pay for it - just throw never ending amounts of money at it.

When no Chemical Weapons turn up - not a big deal. Just wait till they open the Obama Presidential Library and everyone will have forgotten all about it...

Because in aMURICA we don't learn from our mistakes! We repeat them over and over and over again. aMURICA!

U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!

Wrong.. Those steps and coordination have been done.

Obama's red line was that the United States would **ACT**.. Not that the United States would CONSULT.. Would CO-ORDINATE..

"The United States will ACT!"

The idea that he would do so based merely upon news reports coming out and without being certain is on the highest levels of moroncy (I just made this word up, I like it).

Once again you change the argument.

We are not talking "MEDIA REPORTS"...

We are talking the HEAD of the Senate Intelligence Committee, A DEMOCRAT, who says UNEQUIVOCALLY that red lines have been crossed.

We are talking about Obama's select choice for SecDef saying that Red Lines have been crossed..

Face it.. Obama is a coward and has absolutely NO moral courage whatsoever..

" Never again will I allow our political self-interest to deter us from doing what we know to be morally right. Atrocity and terror are not political weapons, and to those who would use them, your day is over. We will never negotiate. We will no longer tolerate and we will no longer be afraid. It's your turn to be afraid."
-President Marshall, AIR FORCE ONE

I really wish that Obama would grow a pair...

Michale

The idea that he would do so based merely upon news reports coming out and without being certain is on the highest levels of moroncy (I just made this word up, I like it).

Whatever intelligence Obama gets is better than your 'internet/media intelligence'. I would've thought you'd have learned that after posting your 'facts' about an innocent Saudi guy just a week ago all over the internet and all the other complete and utter media/internet FAILS following the Boston marathon attacks. It seems that no matter how horrendously wrong you get it, one week later you're back to being 'certain' and knowing the 'facts' again jumping in without haste - completely believing whatever your media sources are feeding you once more. It seems the old adage 'learn from your mistakes' isn't a big one with you and others...

If I am wrong and SecDef Hagel is wrong and Senator DiFi is wrong and Obama acts then the WORST thing to happen is that Assad is yanked from power and tens of thousands of innocent Syrians are alive..

If I am right and SecDef Hagel is right and Senator DiFi is right and OBAMA and YA'ALL are wrong and Obama does nothing??

Tens of thousands of innocent Syrians are brutally butchered and ANY future "red line" from Obama will be laughed at and ridiculed..

Obama will have neutered himself and the United States..

Yea.. Ya'all are right..

The latter option is the best course of action... :^/

Michale

Syria has nothing to do with Iraq..

When are you people going to quit using Bush as an excuse for the incompetence of Obama??

The bottom line is Obama created a solid and unequivocal red line.

That red line has been crossed..

Now Obama wants to equivocate..

As I said above.. Obama's Red Line is a yellow line.. Right down the middle of Obama's back..

Michale

Chemical weapons HAVE been used in Syria..
FACT

Lolololol. I am sure before the Iraq war your statement was: 'WMD are in Iraq and ready to be used. Fact'

Thankfully your President isn't as callous about the big decision of rushing into war as you are. And throughout this thread you have been wondering why the rest of the world doesn't like your brand of right wing lunatic Republicans in charge??

I am further constrained to point out that, while ya'all completely and unequivocally blame Bush for all the ills of this country in the here and now, ya'all (for the most part and with notable exceptions) hold Obama completely blameless..

The huge rise of the deficit is Bush's fault, not Obama's..

Benghazi is not Obama's fault..

All the bad things is NOT Obama's fault. And 90% of the bad things are all Bush's fault.

And ya'all have the unmitigated temerity to say "Well, I know Bush is a good man."

What utter felgercarb...

Ya'all feel EXACTLY for Bush as I feel about Obama.

Don't bother denying it.. The evidence is plentiful and conclusive..

Michale

I realize you are using the tried and true tactic of being utterly ridiculous so as to cover up that ya'all have absolutely no facts to refute my facts. :D

" 's OK.. I understand, this ain't no never-never land.."
-J. Geils Band, FREEZE-FRAME

:D

Michale

Heheh.

This is kind of fun!

-David

"Hey laughing boy, no more bullets!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylqEN7J3GLA

A Yellow Line that runs right down the middle Obama's back....

Michale

But the facts are these.

Chemical weapons HAVE been used in Syria..
FACT

Obama stated that, if chemical weapons were used in Syria, then US/NATO would act..
FACT

Obama lied.. Thousands died..

Wasn't that the line every hysterical moron used with Bush???

Michale

Senator Dianne Feinstein is certain what is going on in the country..

"It is clear that ‘red lines' have been crossed and action must be taken to prevent larger scale use. Syria has the ability to kill tens of thousands with its chemical weapons. The world must come together to prevent this by unified action which results in the secure containment of Syria's significant stockpile of chemical weapons."

SecDef Chuck Hagel is "certain" what is going on in Syria...

"Our intelligence community does asses with varying degrees of confidence that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale in Syria, specifically the chemical agent Sarin"

These are DEMOCRATS and OBAMA ADMINISTRATION officials, Captain Dunsel..

Obama is just a chicken-shit coward who can't even be trusted to defend HIS OWN red lines...

I know, I know.. You don't care about the tens of thousands of innocent people who have died in Syria..

They aren't illegal immigrants or criminals you can coddle, so you really don't give a rat's ass about them..

All you care about is hating and bashing Bush...

Michale

"Our intelligence community does asses with varying degrees of confidence that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale in Syria, specifically the chemical agent Sarin"
-SecDef Chuck Hagel

"It is our conclusion that the 'red line' has not been crossed in Syria."
-Obama White House

Suddenly I have this urge to sing Kenny Rogers' COWARD OF THE COUNTY

How can we trust a man who won't even act on his own Red Lines???

Michale

You got that one right.

I presume in this context you mean he isn't prepared to rush into a war based on flimsy security reports and uncertainty about what's actually going on in the country? Then you're spot on, very good observation.

"I'd say that given our own history with intelligence assessments, including intelligence assessments related to weapons of mass destruction, it's very important that we are able to establish this with certainty and that we are able to present information that is airtight in a public and credible fashion to underpin all of our decision-making. That is, I think, the threshold that is demanded given how serious this issue is," the official said. "But again, I think nobody should have any mistake about what our red line is... It is absolutely the case that the president's red line is the use of chemical weapons or the transfer of chemical weapons to terrorist groups."

It's all Bush's fault... :^/

Again, I wish I could say I am surprised....

Michale

Much to this country's detriment re: National Security.....

White House: We don’t know if Syria red line has been crossed
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/04/25/white_house_we_don_t_know_if_syria_red_line_has_been_crossed

...... Obama is no Bush....

One has to wonder if he EVER made a red line he DIDN'T ignore...

Michale

Your game is flawed.. Again, I am not surprised.

Clinton had a buttload of marital affairs. At least 4 were documented...

Of course, I am sure you would dispute what the definition of "is" is, so it's useless to expect logic and objectivity from you..

Everything Liberal/Left/Democrats is goodness and light...

Everything Republican/Right is evil incarnate..

That ought to take care of ANY discussion you may want to have in the future...

Michale

This one's my favourite so far :)

OJ has a great record with regards to murdering women because, aside from the one time when he murdered a women, no other woman has been murdered by him.

Godwin.

You lose.. :D

Michale

LOOOOOOOOL you provided a poll (no link or anything, just a quote - I assume that means it's data is incredibly weak or it is massively outdated or something...) that shows Obama is unpopular in the ARAB world (actually less than 6 mainly tiny countries). Wow. You should call yourself Sherlock Michale with such amazing detective work. Amazing. What's next, a poll showing Obama is unpopular in North Korea? Iran? Lololol.

The data I provided covers countries making up the vast majority of the ENTIRE WORLD, including the Arab world, and was taken within the last 5 months. And it shows not only is Obama not more popular than Bush but even at his LOWEST LEVEL OF POPULARITY he is double as popular as Bush in the vast majority of the world.

My poll = covers countries making up almost the entire 6 billion population of the world.
Your poll = doesn't even cover 1% of the world's population.

Only one person got spanked here with their horrendous efforts to prove Bush is more popular than Obama (lolol a crappy survey of 6 tiny countries in the Arab world) and it certainly wasn't me.

Bush kept this country safe at a time when terrorism was at it's HIGHEST threat level..

NOT ONE SINGLE terrorist made it to it's target Post 9/11, despite an overwhelming desire and capability to do so...

Lolol your logic is HORRIFIC. Just after a mass terrorist attack is the LEAST likely time for someone else to attack because they are doing so when the country is at it's highest security level.

Saying Bush has a great record with regards to terrorism, despite the largest terrorist attack ever in the history of the USA occurring under his watch, is like saying Hitler, despite starting the largest war ever seen in the entire world, actually has a great record when it comes to starting wars because aside from this he didn't start any wars... It's literally on this level of stupidity. Hilarious though, keep em coming.

OK, that was a bit unkind..

In fairness to you, it's as I always said. Anyone can find ANY stat or ANY poll that will support ANY position or opinion...

Michale

Do we credit Abraham Lincoln with the fact that there was never a nuclear attack on the US during his presidency??

No, of course we don't.. Why??

Because there wasn't much of a threat...

PRE-911, there wasn't much of a terrorist threat beyond the normal "background noise"..

The TIME when a leader needs to be MOST attentive is POST attack..

Such as FDR after Pearl Harbor..

Bush kept this country safe at a time when terrorism was at it's HIGHEST threat level..

NOT ONE SINGLE terrorist made it to it's target Post 9/11, despite an overwhelming desire and capability to do so...

Obama?? FIVE terrorists have made it to their targets...

You were the one that brought up Bush's competence..

I was simply pointing out that, in the field of my chosen expertise, Bush slams Obama to the ground, no contest...

Michale

The poll surveys Arab opinion in six countries: Morocco, Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, and reveals that "Arabs see the Obama Administration's handling of most Middle East policy issues as having made no contribution to improving US-Arab relations. Only on the issue of the "no-fly zone over Libya" do a majority of Saudis and plurality of Lebanese see a positive contribution."

I would have thought you were tired of being spanked... :D

Michale

http://www.gallup.com/poll/161201/leadership-earning-lower-marks-worldwide.aspx

I'll save you the reading with some quotes:

Despite these poorer scores, approval ratings for the most part remain stronger than they were at the end of the last Bush administration.

Although the Obama administration shifted its foreign policy focus to Asia in 2011, Gallup's surveys found ratings heading in a negative direction 2012. The 37% median approval in 2012 was still higher than any rating during the Bush administration.

But it DOES prove my point. How much you hate Bush to the point that you just make shit up...

Lol nope. Amazing. I make stuff up but you literally just made up that I hate Bush.

Your lolololine is in black and white on this page (I'm sure you've mentioned it before): Post 9/11 not ONE SINGLE terrorist made it to their targets.. You're saying that Bush did well because, aside from the biggest terrorist attack ever in American history, there were no other terrorist attacks! Lololol

Newsflash for you, Sonny Jim.. The British Empire ended a LONG time ago.. :D

This is why Obama's approval ratings are much higher and I'd guess why they are much higher elsewhere too

Still waiting for this evidence..

I posted a link a while back (Check FTPs ) that showed Obama's popularity was below Bush's worldwide... :D

Even if we WERE talking about popularity, which we were not...

I'm still laughing about the 'only one 9/11' happened under Bush comment,

Of course you are. That's because (as usual) you are trying to make it say something it obviously doesn't..

But it DOES prove my point. How much you hate Bush to the point that you just make shit up...

Michale

I'm still laughing about the 'only one 9/11' happened under Bush comment, that's amazing logic!

Besides... We're not talking popularity..

Any airhead moron can win a popularity contest..

Like, according to you, Obama... :D

Michale

Put up or shut up..

Cite the evidence..

Or evidence as in 'I'm Michale and my opinion is evidence'?

When you have two and a half decades in the field under your belt, I'll consider your opinion as evidence.

You don't so I won't...

Michale

Lololol I love this line. Basically because ONLY ONE 9/11 happened under Bush he deserves credit for this! LOLOLOL. Amazing.

But the evidence clearly shows that Bush did it right and it's Obama who is over his head..

But I don't expect you to buy into logic. You have made it clear that, with you, ideology trumps logic any day of the week and twice on Sunday...

Evidence like the polls of every single country in the world (except Pakistan) showing that Obama has a higher approval rating than Bush? Or evidence as in 'I'm Michale and my opinion is evidence'? I'm going to guess the latter. But thanks for giving your biased-right-wing American opinion about how the rest of the world probably saw Bush. I mean it's not like I was living in the rest of the world at the time and still continue to, so who am I to say this in the face of such 'Michale-evidence' ;)

And yet, FIVE terrorists have made it to their targets under President Obama..

Under President Bush..

Post 9/11 not ONE SINGLE terrorist made it to their targets..

Now, no one is a bigger fan of Obama's expansion of Bush CT policies than I..

But the evidence clearly shows that Bush did it right and it's Obama who is over his head..

But I don't expect you to buy into logic. You have made it clear that, with you, ideology trumps logic any day of the week and twice on Sunday...

Michale

It makes sense because at some point you have to recognize that your business model needs to change. The only question is at what point. And whether you will be able to survive as a business at the point you decide. The more forward thinking companies will anticipate and adapt.

Unfortunately, I think there's a lot of profit to be made short term through fighting and lobbying. At least here in the 'States anyways.

-David

Bush to me, like most of the rest of the world, just came across as a dumb guy way over his head.

Once again. Puts it all in perspective..

MANY Lefties should well and truly be ashamed of themselves..

Michale

Like I said before, Conservatives all over the world have accepted Global Warming and Climate Change - except for the backwards Conservatives in America.

I actually did some work for BP and Shell and they're not as bad as you'd think they would be - I was certainly surprised. Don't get me wrong, they're no angels and their interest in renewable energy is largely because they know that this will be the future of their companies and where the money will be in energy in future. But they are starting to shift the focus of their R&D departments more away from 'how to get oil out the ground cheaply, safely and efficiently' to renewable energy research...

Read the actual study and criticisms about it rather than the link bait headlines. It does not say what you want it to. It points out problems in the short term predictive models, something that is well known in climate science. As a side note: the author also believes in intelligent design over evolution and the editor-in-chief of Remote Sensing resigned because this study slipped through. Here is a rebuttal of the article: http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/Dessler2011.pdf [pdf]. You can find links to the original article in the slashdot comments...

This is usually how it goes. The first step is admitting you're wrong whilst also not admitting you're wrong about the EXACT detail. Then eventually you move to the consensus position. It is pretty much exactly what happened with smoking:

Step (1) Smoking doesn't harm your health (now gimme some $$ Tobacco industry!)
Step (2) Ok maybe smoking isn't that good but your findings are over the top, there is no way it causes lung cancer!
Step (3) Ok I guess it may cause lung cancer...
Step (10) Ok fine, I guess smoking maybe is actually the single greatest cause of preventable death in the world today.

http://heartland.org/

It appears that adding a green colored background and using an "earth friendly" name is all you need.

-David

Yeah, I know. Our political culture holds us back as much as anything. But we have made a number of significant investments recently. It's just a shame our government is influenced so strongly by the likes of the Exxons and Halliburtons of the world.

-David

Oh no we are definitely stupid enough. I mean look at Conservatives in America ;)

Ya'all support all the lobbying and the lawyering and the talking and the seminaring to the tune of BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars..

Wouldn't it be BETTER to spend all those billions on green technology and green R&D???

Huh? I don't support any of this. And none of this is the problem.

The problem is American Conservatives who will not admit that Green Energy is the future (generally because they are being paid not to admit this).

Furthermore, if Green Energy got 1/10 of the subsidies thrown at Oil and Gas Companies it wouldn't be the 'economy damaging' (LOL) monster Conservatives try to show it to be.

You people support the status quo..

Uhm no Conservatives support the status quo. It is almost by DEFINITION what a Conservative is.

Their 'science' which 'disproves' Global Warming is how they justify supporting the status quo. Anyone with half a brain knows this is nothing to do with why and that it all comes down to $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

BTW, Michale. This article was written by a Senior Fellow at The Heartland Institute.

The Heartland Institute is a conservative and libertarian think tank.

It appears this Heartland fellow draws some different conclusions than the peer-reviewed work he actually cites.

The key point from the paper itself is that "the presence of time varying radiative
forcing in satellite radiative flux measurements corrupts the diagnosis of radiative feedback"

While Mr. Conservative Libertarian's conclusion is "The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed."

So while the scientists seem to be saying "the measurements are suspect," Mr. Conservative Libertarian takes it to the next step and says "less global warming will occur".

Don't get me wrong, the pace of global warming is a hot subject for debate. But even Mr. Conservative Libertarian doesn't say it's not happening. Merely that it might not happen as quickly as projected.

-David

Michale

Ya'all support all the lobbying and the lawyering and the talking and the seminaring to the tune of BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars..

Wouldn't it be BETTER to spend all those billions on green technology and green R&D???

You people support the status quo..

I am more inclined to take the billions and actually put it into productive use...

Michale

You brought god into it, not me..

I simply say that humans are too stoopid to destroy the planet..

If you would like me to be more politically correct, then I would say that humans do not possess the technological capability to destroy the planet...

But it all is the same...

Humans are not smart enough to destroy the planet.

Period..

Michale

Because it's complete and utter felgercarb for all the reasons I have stated above and NO ONE has addressed...

Matter of fact MANY scientists have stated that a little global warming (such as the kind we have seen) is actually beneficial to humans..

If one wants to talk about going green to end pollution and use of fossil fuels?? Sure, I am 1000% on their side in that..

If one wants to talk about doing it to prevent humans from destroying the planet?? I'll treat them as the Flat-Earth morons that they are...

No offense to anyone here.. :D

Michale

Yea, we're doing such a bang up job what with all these green companies going bankrupt, due to greed and incompetence...

Now, if we had taken the billions and billions and billions of dollars that had gone to LOBBYISTS and LAWYERS and MORONS like Al Gore and PUT that into Green technology, we would be a LOT further ahead..

TRUE or FALSE???

Are you kidding me? You seriously don't think that humans are capable of destroying large swaths of the planet?

Humans might make areas (or even the entire planet) unlivable for a few centuries or even a few millenia..

But it is nothing but human arrogance to think that puny......

"PUNY GOD..."
-Hulk, THE AVENGERS

... and narrow and shallow minded humans can actually destroy the planet...

Michale

Michale

I see green energy as more of an opportunity than a threat to the economy. And ... I'd rather see us lead in this area than be behind.

Good luck. You'll have to catch Europe/China first ;)

There isn't even an argument here. If you wait till Oil and Gas have almost run out the cost and impact to the economy will be CONSIDERABLY worse than the cost of starting now and phasing it out year by year.

And you people call ME arrogant??!!

Are you kidding me? You seriously don't think that humans are capable of destroying large swaths of the planet? Heck yes they are. They have even already destroyed large parts of it and no doubt will continue to destroy large parts of it directly (eg. Deforestation) or indirectly (eg. Global Warming) in future.

Right.

So back to the business argument ...

I see green energy as more of an opportunity than a threat to the economy. And ... I'd rather see us lead in this area than be behind.

Not sure why the fact that warming could pose a threat bothers you. But I figured you as someone likely interested in the technology angle.

-David

The good thing about my position (that is, using simple logic and rationale to solve the problem) is I don't even care how much 'theory' you throw at me to 'prove' Global Warming isn't happening.

The fact that there is a >0% probability that something we will have to replace anyway might be destroying the planet (or parts of the planet even) makes the decision really easy.

Also you still haven't answered what the motives are for the scientists who have shown Global Warming to be a risk. Just doing it for shits and giggles? Just to annoy you? Because there certainly is a heck of a motivation for the other side of the argument (in America, the only place where this side of the argument exists)...

What arrogance..

You HONESTLY believe that humans are smart enough to DESTROY the planet???

REALLY??!!

And you people call ME arrogant??!!

Michale

Then why are all your global warming(the earth is actually warming) links and arguments so faith based?

My position on Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) has been and always will be is that we don't know enough to know what we don't even know..

There is legitimate science that supports the theory and there is legitimate that disputes the theory.

THAT is what an OBJECTIVE person would say...

It is ya'all who refuse to accept ANY science that disproves the Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) theory...

Follow the link I posted. It's from NASA. Disprove the data.

Is that the same NASA who has changed it's position half a dozen times when it was discovered they were using flawed data???

NASA has released so much flawed data and graphs, but if you want comments on their current data:

science.slashdot.org/story/11/07/28/2249238/new-nasa-data-casts-doubt-on-global-warming-models

You want Peer Reviewed??

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/07/27/new-nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-in-global-warming-alarmism/

You see my point..

There is PLENTY of REAL peer-reviewed science out that that disputes the Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) theory..

But ya'all won't accept it based on IDEOLOGY..

That's faith... Pure and simple..

Now, you are going to come back with "yea, well those scientists are poopy heads!!" or some other similar non-scientific retort..

And so it will go on and on...

Ya'alls definition of science is single minded..

If it disputes the Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) theory, it really isn't science..

Like I said.. Faith...

Pure and simple...

Now, quit it!! Ya KNOW I have no self-control over this subject...

Michale

Given that, there is a ZERO PERCENT chance of humankind destroying.

Lol we're not talking about Global Warming blowing up the planet (that would be an issue related to nuclear capacity). I don't know the exact science, as I'm not a scientist, but potentially destroying vast swaths of our planet (if not the entire planet) simply because Conservatives in America are morons doesn't sound like a good plan of action to me.

And FAITH is ALL that Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) proponents have..

No it's actually the exact opposite. You have only faith that you are wrong and we don't destroy our planet. I shall call you a Human Caused Global Warming (but let's not do anything about it) proponents. Or Human Caused Global Warming (duuuuuh but I looked out my window and it's cold today so the scientists must be wrong) proponent.

Your faith is based on the ludicrous principle that a bunch of scientists got together and - completely for shits and giggles - decided to make up a story about Global Warming, when they have absolutely no incentive to do so.

My faith is that scientists are better at science that you and Conservative idiots (in America) are. And since they have no incentive to lie to me and since it is a documented fact that the solution they are proposing will have to be implemented anyway - at some point in the future - it makes the decision to implement the solution now, rather than later, incredibly easy.

Follow the link I posted. It's from NASA. Disprove the data.

I have posted dozens and will again if Olympus decrees it so...

The fact that you refuse to accept them is indicative you don't WANT to believe.

You apparently prefer faith over science..

That's your right. Just as it is my right to show that it IS faith and not science..

Faith is the OPPOSITE of Science...

Faith is the anti-Science..

And FAITH is ALL that Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) proponents have..

Michale

Obama has stated that use of chemical weapons would be a red line..

Ample evidence exists that chemical weapons HAVE been used in Syria...

Obama does nothing....

"This is line of death!! You cross it, you die!!! OK, you cross THIS line, you die!! OK, you knock on my door, I not come out! nyaa nyaa.."
-Robin Williams channeling Muamar Qadaffi

:D

Michale

Here is NASA/Columbia university data that shows it pretty well: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

As for the antarctic ice, you should probably learn the difference between sea ice and glacial ice. The sea ice is increasing in certain areas and reducing in other areas with a small overall net increase. The glacial ice is melting.

Where we part ways is when you say, "Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) is going to destroy the planet!!! SO we must destroy our economy to prevent it!!!"

Who is saying this? I've yet to see a real climate scientist say this. Is this your usual trick of putting words into other's mouths or can you back it up?

The problem with your political analysis of science is if someone actually disproved global warming in a per reviewed and reproducible form, they would pretty much get a tenure track or other high level position at the university or research institution of their choice. The rewards would be immense. That's unlikely to happen. Climate science is complex. There is unlikely to be a single paper E=MC2 type explanation as climate science is tens of thousands of papers examining all sorts of phenomena, not always titled in ways that make it obvious to non-science types that it is about climate science.

I'm still waiting for a good per reviewed article from you. One from an institution with access to satellites and super computers and can't be trivially linked to oil funding. It's been years of waiting, but hey, I'm patient...

Michale

Let me say it again.

It is TECHNOLOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for the human race to destroy the planet.

PERIOD..

Given that, there is a ZERO PERCENT chance of humankind destroying.

ZERO.. ZILCH... NADA... NONE...

So, any effort to prevent that is wasted effort because it just ain't possible..

Barring a cosmic collision, this planet will still be turning when humans have gone the way of the Dodo...

Some are already AT that point.....

...but I digest...

Michale

Not true at all. This is what I was talking about before. Only Conservatives in America make this a political issue. Conservatives ALL OVER THE WORLD do not consider it so (although the idiotic Conservative party in Canada is moving increasingly towards the American position).

Like I mentioned there is worldwide consensus on Global Warming (except for Conservatives in America). It isn't a political issue. It is a scientific issue which Conservatives (in America) have politicised.

But if you want to argue that we have to do all of the afore or else we will destroy the planet (which is impossible) or destroy the planet's climate (which is ALSO impossible) then I will ridicule such a position at the drop of a dime...

Well if there is a >0% probability that this might happen (which even the most ardent Global Warming lunatic fanatic will agree) then why on earth would you risk waiting to replace something that needs replacing? The disagreement is on the percentage, not that it is >0%. The disagreement is also on the exact impact - how many cities will be left underwater (etc).

And by the way Oil and Gas are already destroying your economy. As they are finite resources supply will naturally drop over time whilst demand will increase - natural laws of supply and demand dictate the price of oil is only going to go up over time.

Consider that in the last 20 years alone the price of a barrel of oil has increased more than 10 fold (i.e. more than 1000%).

The only reason I am dragged back is because I think you have inadvertently hit on common ground..

Mine = We replace Oil and Gas with sustainable energy. We would've had to have done this anyway at some point. Potential benefits less horrific weather events, less reliance on Oil and Gas from volatile regions of the world, less war, less famine, less droughts (etc). Potential costs are mainly economic as the transition may be tough depending on how it is handled - but this is a cost that would have to be born anyway.

Yours = We do nothing. At some point down the line we have to replace Oil and Gas anyway - the later we leave it the higher it is likely to cost. Oh and if we leave it too late the entire planet gets destroyed. I guess we could always move to another planet?

This is not true, but you can be forgiven for not knowing because you weren't here...

I am fully and completely ALL for Green Technology..

If you want to replace oil energy, I am the biggest supporter of that there is.. Why do you think I am so pissed that billions and billions and billions of dollars has been spent TALKING about energy independence when that money could have gone well on the way to MAKE IT HAPPEN!!

Where we part ways is when you say, "Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) is going to destroy the planet!!! SO we must destroy our economy to prevent it!!!"

THAT is a political argument that has absolutely NOTHING to do with science and EVERYTHING to do with ideology..

If you want to talk about easing pollution, I'll stand shoulder to shoulder with ya...

If you want to talk about expanding Green Technology, then I am there with ya and we won't have ANYTHING to disagree about...

If you want to discuss getting away from foreign oil, then we will be 1000% in agreement..

But if you want to argue that we have to do all of the afore or else we will destroy the planet (which is impossible) or destroy the planet's climate (which is ALSO impossible) then I will ridicule such a position at the drop of a dime...

Michale

Uhm this is the EXACT problem with your position. Couldn't have said it better myself.

To further this point here is what happens when our positions are wrong:

Mine = We replace Oil and Gas with sustainable energy. We would've had to have done this anyway at some point. Potential benefits less horrific weather events, less reliance on Oil and Gas from volatile regions of the world, less war, less famine, less droughts (etc). Potential costs are mainly economic as the transition may be tough depending on how it is handled - but this is a cost that would have to be born anyway.

Yours = We do nothing. At some point down the line we have to replace Oil and Gas anyway - the later we leave it the higher it is likely to cost. Oh and if we leave it too late the entire planet gets destroyed. I guess we could always move to another planet?

Yeh I can see why yours sounds like such a great idea. I'm sure my Grandkids would adjust really well to life on Mars.

Who cares about the derail. It was going to happen at some point when someone challenged your stupid 'Global Warming yet the planet is cooling' nonsense...

Using your reasoning, we should go out and kill every muslim in the world, to prevent this..

Nope you're still not getting it. Muslims are not finite resources that are going to need to be be replaced anyway down the line...

It totally and completely ignores the possibility that you MIGHT be wrong and it utterly fails to take into account the consequences...

Uhm this is the EXACT problem with your position. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Preventing a terrorist attack that kills MILLIONS of innocent people is a GOOD thing. No doubt about it..

But is that possibility WORTH totally murdering millions and millions of muslims many of them completely and unequivocally innocent??

Replacing Oil and Gas (which we'll have to do anyway) won't require killing millions of people. In fact, quite the opposite. By decreasing our reliance on energy from volatile regions of the world, the world will probably become a safer place at the same time. Much of the military action, killings and global agenda of the past decades has been related to Oil and Gas (COUGH IRAQ COUGH COUGH). Without it's poisonous influence on Global Relations who knows how much better a place the world could become...

Unless there is a sign from Olympus, I am going to bow out from the discussion...

Michale

But, on the other hand, there is a greater than 0% chance that a sinkhole could develop under your....

Very true. However, I can't personally do anything to mitigate these risks and reduce the probability of them happening.

With Global Warming we can - reduce our use of Oil and Gas and we reduce our risk that our use of Oil and Gas is destroying the planet. The fact that WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO DO THIS ANYWAY AT SOME POINT SINCE THEY ARE FINITE RESOURCES makes the decision to do so all the more easy.

There is a greater than 0% chance that a muslim will commit a huge terrorist attack in the US that will kill millions..

Using your reasoning, we should go out and kill every muslim in the world, to prevent this..

That's the problem with your reasoning. Hell, that's the problem with your entire position.

It totally and completely ignores the possibility that you MIGHT be wrong and it utterly fails to take into account the consequences...

Preventing a terrorist attack that kills MILLIONS of innocent people is a GOOD thing. No doubt about it..

But is that possibility WORTH totally murdering millions and millions of muslims many of them completely and unequivocally innocent??

You tell me...

Michale

(2) There is a greater than 0% chance they may be destroying the planet (FACT)

There is a greater than 0% chance that you could be killed by a terrorist or a falling meoteor or a mugger or a jealous co-worker..

Using YOUR reasoning, you should NEVER leave the house..

But, on the other hand, there is a greater than 0% chance that a sinkhole could develop under your....

MY GODS, MICHTY!!!! GET OUT OF THERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You see how utterly ridiculous that position is??

Michale

That's because it's had so many different names..

Which PROVES that it's not about science..

It's about marketing a unsavory and unpopular political agenda...

Michale

You have to bare in mind that outside of America Global Warming is accepted by every single Government. Also remember that Conservatives outside of America aren't lunatic nut-case whack-jobs and actually hold reasonable positions on a wide range of subjects. So I fixed your post slightly:

Every time you cite a source it's either an American conservative source, a deliberate misinterpretation by an American conservative source, or some work which has been discredited (typically from an American conservative source).

siigghhhhh Yes there are.... There is TONS of peer-reviewed science from the Pro Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) scientists that state this. Unequivocally...

So who is putting their heads in the sand now???

That is my entire point. You refuse to accept ANYTHING that disputes the Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) theory..

Even if it comes from your own scientists!!

Michale

But, just ta show ya I still like ya, David... :D

http://sjfm.us/temp/25apr13.jpg

I still wear it.. It's comfy... Even if I get dirty looks :D

Michale

Now looking back it is LAUGHABLE that it was even in doubt that smoking causes lung cancer and is horrible for your health.

But back in the day (and still today out there) people were making the exact same nonsensical stupid judgements you hear now about Global Warming like "my Gran has smoked for 100 years and she is fine!" This is the equivalent of "yeh but we just had a really cold winter, so much for Global Warming!"

It's basically stupid people who have no idea how science (or even basic scientific sampling) works - or even what Global Warming is - trying to insert their own 'gut feelings' into science.

Again, the issue is simple. I present you with my 3 step logic once more, please indicate which of the 3 points you disagree with:

(1) Oil and gas are finite and will have to be replaced (FACT)
(2) There is a greater than 0% chance they may be destroying the planet (FACT)
(3) Replacing oil and gas now - to reduce the probability that they are destroying the planet - rather than later is therefore logically and rationally a simple decision to make.

No scientists are saying that global warming isn't occurring.

Every time you cite a source it's either a conservative source, a deliberate misinterpretation by a conservative source, or some work which has been discredited (typically from a conservative source).

-David

Yer right. They are a bunch of liars and cads and crooks who are bought and paid for by the oil/gas industry and would rather see the planet destroyed (which is impossible, by the bi) to earn a few bucks.

Yer right..

So....

Let's talk about the scientists who are pro Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) theory..

THOSE scientists have been saying that Global Warming stopped a couple decades ago.. That warming hasn't been "statistically significant" since the mid 90s...

THEY are saying they can't explain that..

THEY are saying that the planet should be warming faster because there is MORE CO2 in the air..

THEY are at a complete loss to explain WHY the CO2 rise is constant and accelerating yet the temps are not following suit..

It YOUR scientists that are saying this. YOUR priests are "questioning their faith"...

What's your "objective" response to this??

Michale

No.. I am saying that if BOTH sides of an issue present COMPELLING evidence of their theories, that a truly objective person would give BOTH theories equal credence and not ignore the evidence that is not politically palatable..

On the other, you have an extremely small amount of evidence against the theory typically presented by scientists who represent the oil and/or gas industry.

How can you claim objectivity and still spout such ludicrous "conspiracy theories"???

You don't think there isn't big money in PRO Global Warming theories??

Look at the BILLIONS and BILLIONS that have been made and spent supporting the unproven theory..

How much richer is Al Gore today then he was 2 decades ago??

You can't tell me that the ONLY place money has influence is on the side of those who dispute the Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) theory..

At least, you can't and try to claim the mantle of objectivity..

I believe you're against the theory because you're convinced that somehow this will harm industry.

No, I am against the theory because I, as an OBJECTIVE bystander can see that the science on the other side of the issue is equally compelling.

You refuse to even acknowledge that THAT science even exists..

So who is objective here and who isn't??

Another way to look at it is that, if Republicans keep fighting against science,

"There you go again"
-Ronald Reagan

*YOU* and Democrats are "fighting science" as much as you claim Republicans are.

THAT is the fact that you are blinded to..

You refuse to accept ANY science that disputes the Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) theory AS science...

You simply spout ad hominem attacks against the scientists as simply pawns of the oil and gas industry..

Once again, how can you claim to be objective when you refuse to acknowledge as valid ANYTHING that disputes your political view??

Like I said above..

You are not talking science. You are talking faith..

And faith is the OPPOSITE of science..

Think about it..

Michale

I would agree with you that there's a lot that's still unknown about climate change and the impact. However, the general theory that the Earth is warming is well established and not in dispute among reputable scientists.

-David

The argument we're making is that on one side, there is virtually overwhelming evidence presented and reconfirmed by scientists.

On the other, you have an extremely small amount of evidence against the theory typically presented by scientists who represent the oil and/or gas industry.

Hmmm ... which side is more believable. But forget that for a second.

I believe you're against the theory because you're convinced that somehow this will harm industry.

What I'd argue is that this is actually a great opportunity for industry if they would take advantage of it rather than fight against it. More and more, whether the deniers want it or not, people are looking for ways to either save energy or generate it in new ways. We can either lead that change or get caught behind when someone else does.

Another way to look at it is that, if Republicans keep fighting against science, pretty soon they're going to become an anachronism. So this is also an opportunity for the Republican party.

-David

And, as such, it's probably a good idea to end the discussion..

It's NEVER a good idea to call one's religion into question and point out the illogic of it all..

:D

Michale

And the Antarctic ice cap is growing...

Seriously, Michale. For someone who claims to be so objective, it's pretty amazing how much data you're able to ignore.

Ya know, I could say the EXACT same thing to you..

What about all the evidence that YOU ignore??

What about all the peer reviewed scientific evidence that disputes the Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) theory??

*I* am the ONLY one here who IS objective. Do you know how I know this??

Because *I* can concede that YOU may be right..

But YOU cannot reciprocate..

Seriously ... ask any farmer if things are getting warmer.

Yet, MANY scientists who are PRO Global Warming have conceded that the warming stopped decades ago..

I bet you didn't even READ the article I posted above, did you??

Once again, WHO is objective here??

The one who admits that we don't know enough and that there really MIGHT be Global Warming??

Or the one who refuses to even entertain the possibility that they may be wrong??

Finally, consider this one piece of evidence..

EVERYTHING that happens, climate wise, is because of global warming..

When it's hot and dry, scientists say it's because of global warming.

When it's cold and wet, scientists say it's because of global warming.

When there is no snow, scientists say it's because of global warming.

Where there is tons of snow and huge blizzards, it's because of global warming.

Now... Ask yourself..

What would an OBJECTIVE person say about crap like that??

Since "objective" is the watchword for this particular comment, could you also please explain how an "objective" person can buy into the Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) theory when any and EVERY prediction based on that theory has NEVER been accurate???

Also, please explain how many MANY theories that have been put forth by Pro Global Warming scientists have been SPECTACULARLY wrong?? Proven wrong by peer reviewed science...

Your belief in the Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) theory is exactly like people who would still believe that the Earth is flat..

Despite ALL the FACTUAL and SCIENTIFIC evidence to the contrary, you STILL believe in the Human Caused Global Warming (Yet The Planet Is Cooling) theory.

That's not science, David.

That is faith. Pure and simple..

Michale

Seriously ... ask any farmer if things are getting warmer.

Now whether global warming will lead to huge global disasters is another question, but it's getting tougher and tougher ... err, should I say warmer and warmer to stick your head in the sand and deny it's happening.

-David

It's been pretty well documented that the Arctic ice cap is shrinking.

I mean, pics are everywhere. Here's a sample ...

http://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2011/10/20100428-melting-arctic20ice.jpg

My favorite piece of evidence is the USDA's revised planting tables. They revised them per warmer climate in 2012 because it was obvious to everyone that some plants simply weren't growing as far South as they used to. (See below.)

And haven't you noticed that the so-called "super storms" like Sandy seem to be increasing?

Seriously, Michale. For someone who claims to be so objective, it's pretty amazing how much data you're able to ignore.

-David