Bush says global warming might be "natural"

[gerryhatrick]

When asked what his plan was for global warming after a speech he said:

"Good. We -- first of all, there is -- the globe is warming. The fundamental debate: Is it manmade or natural."

Before all you Bush defenders fall all over yourselves to throw up articles from "scientists" about global warming, don't bother.

I just wanted to expose Bushs words to as many as possible.

[KrustyKidd]

He is a terrible public speaker isn't he?

[gerryhatrick]

He is a terrible public speaker isn't he?

Who cares. More importantly he's a terrible leader. He's proven himself willing to lie to start a war and now we see he's willing to lie (perhaps not technically, but close enough for any intelligent person) about global warming....something that threatens the entire world.

Downplay global warming and the neccessary steps to avoid it, that's his game.

[KrustyKidd]

Who cares.

I agreed with you. Shit Gerry, you made the point and I agreed. Now you don't care? Hell, don't bring it up if you don't care for crying out loud.

[gerryhatrick]

I agreed with you. Shit Gerry, you made the point and I agreed. Now you don't care? Hell, don't bring it up if you don't care for crying out loud.

Nonsense. I don't care that he's a bad speaker, which is what you are blabbering about. I didn't have anything to say about it.

This is about global warming and Bushs Katrina-like incompetance and dishonesty at suggesting it could be "natural".

Unless that's what you're agreeing with you're sorely confused.

[sharkman]

I agreed with you. Shit Gerry, you made the point and I agreed. Now you don't care? Hell, don't bring it up if you don't care for crying out loud.

Nonsense. I don't care that he's a bad speaker, which is what you are blabbering about. I didn't have anything to say about it.

This is about global warming and Bushs Katrina-like incompetance and dishonesty at suggesting it could be "natural".

Unless that's what you're agreeing with you're sorely confused.

Man, Gerry, you really got your knickers in a twist over this Bush guy, huh? You're on a one man crusade to bring him down on this forum. How many Bush hatin' threads have you started? You'll have to wait a couple more years before you see the last of him, I'm afraid.

Anyway, the Globe was warming back in the 30's as well. 4 or 5 category 5 Hurricanes off the coast of Florida yada, yada, none of the environmentalists seem to have noticed since this would screw their theory that the SKY IS FALLING NOW DAMMIT!.

[gerryhatrick]

Man, Gerry, you really got your knickers in a twist over this Bush guy, huh?

Actually, the primary issue of this post is global warming.

Bush is a speck of dirt on a crabs a$$hole in importance compared to the health of our world. He will die soon enough, but the damage he could help prevent will live on.

Global warming sharkman. Topic is about global warming. If it makes you feel better we won't mention his name. Replace all references to "Bush" with "POTUS" and start over.

[KrustyKidd]

I agreed with you. Shit Gerry, you made the point and I agreed. Now you don't care? Hell, don't bring it up if you don't care for crying out loud.

Nonsense. I don't care that he's a bad speaker, which is what you are blabbering about. I didn't have anything to say about it.

This is about global warming and Bushs Katrina-like incompetance and dishonesty at suggesting it could be "natural".

Unless that's what you're agreeing with you're sorely confused.

Gerry you are a good luagh for a wednesday night. Here you are saying that you don't care he is a bad speaker yet, instead of giving us a policy in play by the administration or a speech in which he goes in depth you pick out a jumble of words purposely picked not to provide a message but rather to show how he mangles his words. Here, once again so you don't have to scroll up (poor thing must be tired after having to take a beating on three simultanious threads complete with cross linking and such)

When asked what his plan was for global warming after a speech he said:

"Good. We -- first of all, there is -- the globe is warming. The fundamental debate: Is it manmade or natural."

Before all you Bush defenders fall all over yourselves to throw up articles from "scientists" about global warming, don't bother.

I just wanted to expose Bushs words to as many as possible.

Well Gerry, the globe is warming and the fundemental debate is manmade or natural. You wish to make a thread out of this or what?

[gerryhatrick]

Well Gerry, the globe is warming and the fundemental debate is manmade or natural. You wish to make a thread out of this or what?

Ha ha! Sorry George, that debate is over.

The political debate is probably how much longer can you lie about it, but I'll leave that up to you.

[KrustyKidd]

Ha ha! Sorry George, that debate is over.

Good.

Now, to go on about the other part. I believe that the ecology is our prime problem on the planet. I also believe that in less than fifty years, if we don't act now, and I mean now, not next year or the decade after. Our children will see the beggining of the end, knowing that within two or three generations, their children will be facing a planet filled with problems ranging from increasing population fighting over ever shrinking resources. Compounded by the value of the resources skyrocketing and thus increasing consumption by those who can access it before it vanishes. Pretty much look at Norse Greenland, Easter Island and such and that's the way it's going to go.

The problems you see with Iraq and Somalia and such are only the begginings of this trend. All pof the planets hot spots pretty much have depleted resources. Coincidence? Nope. As the resources vanish, so does any opportunity to control ce=ntrally adn, reverse the trend.

Very scary shit indeed. Not just lib talking points. However, this is one subject that is not political, it's survival and, has to be taken care of aggressively. With political, military and ecological expertise put together with finaincial and industrual investement in some pretty messed up places. We don't have forever. As I said, our grandchildren if we don't change will be the first to experience starvation, with no place to run.

[Riverwind]

Ha ha! Sorry George, that debate is over.

Actually it isn't. Global warming is caused by human activity and has been going on since man first started chopping trees down to plant rice 6000 years ago. The only thing that has changed is the world population has grown exponentially so the effect of man on the environment has grown exponentially. Pratically speaking, the only way to do something about global warming is to reduce the world population down to the pre-industrial revolution levels. This would require that about 4 out of 5 people to be killed off. There is no magic fairy that can feed and shelter 6 billion people without affecting the world's environment.

The best we can hope to accomplish is reduce our footprint through energy and resource conservation, however, there is a limit to what came be done without undermining the economic system which is required to feed and shelter those 6 billion people.

[sharkman]

Hey Krusty, notice how Gerry completely ignored the part of my post he didn't want to deal with? Several killer hurricanes in a year are nothing new as are environmentalists who hyperventilate at the thought that it's just a normal part of mother nature's cycles. Uh, you know what I mean.

[KrustyKidd]

Oh ya, he does that a lot. Just finishing off another post sayng the same thing. He has about five or ten multi point ones of mine he hasn't kept up with. Very strange behavior for somebody that says we're all wrong.

[gerryhatrick]

Hey Krusty, notice how Gerry completely ignored the part of my post he didn't want to deal with? Several killer hurricanes in a year are nothing new as are environmentalists who hyperventilate at the thought that it's just a normal part of mother nature's cycles. Uh, you know what I mean.

You pointed at "several killer hurricanes" as being nothing new and that was something I was supposed to respond to?

It's pointless. Irrelavent, like the rest of the rightwing psycopathic denial of the issue of global warming.

You and Krusty can sling around whatever you want. I'm putting the * SCOTUS words out there, that's all.

[KrustyKidd]

You and Krusty can sling around whatever you want. I'm putting the * SCOTUS words out there, that's all.

Gerry, I am no formula right winger and agree with you on the environment and more than likely am even more passionate than you about it. What seems to be your problem is that you place people into catagories based upon their opinions thining if they believe this, then automaticlly they believe that. That's a fatal mistake in seeking knowledge and, a good incdication of why you are getting slayed on the boards here.

Another point, try reading what people reply to your posts with as they contain points for you to consider in forming your opinions. If your opinions are always so 'slear' and yet you can't entertain any other opinion or process, then possibly the Flat Earth Society Forums might be a bit more friendly towards you. Or, try getting a blog then switching the 'allow comments' option to 'no.'

[geoffrey]

The global warming end of the world scenario has been voiced for many years. Here is some realities of the ridiculousness of the situation:

1) The world hasn't ended yet

2) First it was getting warmer, then colder, then warmer again

3) Second it was getting drier, than rainer, then drier, ect. ect.. If it's based on fact, why the hell can't someone give a factual answer? Why? Because they don't know.

They don't have a clue. Stopping all emissions today won't remove all the CO2 in the atomosphere currently.

CO2 is a VERY VERY minor player in global warming, water vapour (you know, those cloud things) are responsible for over 80% of the effect. So really, CO2 isn't the culprit. Move on to something else please. Like cheap AIDs drugs or 3rd world debt relief. You know, something that actually makes a difference.

[KrustyKidd]

The global warming end of the world scenario has been voiced for many years. Here is some realities of the ridiculousness of the situation:

I don't think global warming is the actual villan here either, however, it's one part of the whole gaumet of thngs that are going on and how they tie in together. For example, if global warming is caused by Martian moon rays and will stop in fity years it does little to stop the devastation that will occur along coastlines where much of the third world lives. Where are these people going to go and what are they going to do?

I think the greater threat is air quality which slows plant growth and such. Coupled with over harvesting it decreases plants and trees and leads to further soil errosion. Soil that of course is necessary for further plant growth. Then I can go on with improper watering techniques, salinization and stuff like that but it all boils down to an inequity in education and lifestyle on the planet. Compounded by the natural and ecologoical problems.

This means that when India and China become frist world countries with money and taste, they will pay for resources and the price goes up. Up enough to make illegal and non edologiclly sound mining and logging practices more common place in the third world - the place that only has people and natural resources. Coupled with the coastline thing above, what do these people do with no resources, no money? They move, and place a buden onto the next place until it too cannot withstand the increased human footprint and likewise folds.

That pressure won't be felt here for a long while but, eventually, people have to do something, go somewhere so what happens when the rest of the world has not and we have?

I think and that's one of the non formula things about my beliefs, that we have to change our ways. Not to change the world but to find the correct way to do things. Then, find an organization that can do what the UN is supposed to be doing and make it work on the rest of the world using a reward and punishment system. If a country is too screwed up to be able to make it work them selves, we have to step in and do it for them. If that involves changing the political setup, so be it. To have some countries preserving their resources while the next is rippiing them out to satisfy an impulsive dictator who gives nothing for the next generation, we can't afford for his country to become a liability to our children. We have to all get on the same footing now.

That's not to be taken that we should be stopping our industry from making profits, that's saying that we also have to enforce theses laws on the entire planet equally. And, to do so takes cooperation and if necessary, force.

[geoffrey]

There is no reason not to make every effort to be environmentally friendly. Just any long-term obligation to the matter will fail and likely cause a big waste of resources trying to keep up with it.

[KrustyKidd]

There is no reason not to make every effort to be environmentally friendly. Just any long-term obligation to the matter will fail and likely cause a big waste of resources trying to keep up with it.

You have it backwards. See, I dispise morons that save bottles and bitch about pesticide use in the city and crap. The time they spend on this stuff could save acres and acres of land in some third world shit hole where the chief sells rights to strip a mountain side so he can put in a well for water. This stuff is going to come back and haunt our grandchildren in a big way when countries tip and soil errosion occurs faster than anybody can even attempt to fix it. The refugees from the civil strife that will occur will topple the resources of neighboring countries and then you have entire regions, continents in disarray.

Our kids, if nothing is done now, will be fighting for their lives, not lifestyles. Change has to be done soon, planning now. And, the people that stand in the way ie: backward cultures and despotic dictators have to go.

[JerrySeinfeld]

There is no reason not to make every effort to be environmentally friendly. Just any long-term obligation to the matter will fail and likely cause a big waste of resources trying to keep up with it.

Global warming is not proven to be a result of human action.

For all we know its a natural cycle.

[KrustyKidd]

Global warming is not proven to be a result of human action.

For all we know its a natural cycle.

True. However, we don't have time to figure it out when we have so many other problems breathing down our necks. Do the research and the money devoted to global warming right now, draw up plans to deal with everything else and form a body that is an all in one type to effect what the changes have to be. Then apply those changes to the entire world. Not just the countries that can afford it.

[newbie]

Global warming is not proven to be a result of human action.

Or disproven.

[gerryhatrick]

Very entertaining. I especially like the "the world hasn't ended yet" point. The absurd idiocy brings a wide smile to my face!

I'd just like to repeat what the idiot-in-Chief had to say:

""Good. We -- first of all, there is -- the globe is warming. The fundamental debate: Is it manmade or natural."

Important for everyone to see that this POTUS has about as much insight as the typical rightwing blogger!

[scribblet]

There is no reason not to make every effort to be environmentally friendly. Just any long-term obligation to the matter will fail and likely cause a big waste of resources trying to keep up with it.

Global warming is not proven to be a result of human action.

For all we know its a natural cycle.

True, and I happen to believe its part of earth's natural cycle, but pollution is just exacerbating it. I somehow doubt that man can do much of anything to stop it. Here's another theory.

http://www.physorg.com/news11710.html

A new theory to explain global warming was revealed at a meeting at the University of Leicester (UK) and is being considered for publication in the journal "Science First Hand". The controversial theory has nothing to do with burning fossil fuels and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.

According to Vladimir Shaidurov of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the apparent rise in average global temperature recorded by scientists over the last hundred years or so could be due to atmospheric changes that are not connected to human emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of natural gas and oil. Shaidurov explained how changes in the amount of ice crystals at high altitude could damage the layer of thin, high altitude clouds found in the mesosphere that reduce the amount of warming solar radiation reaching the earth's surface.

Shaidurov has used a detailed analysis of the mean temperature change by year for the last 140 years and explains that there was a slight decrease in temperature until the early twentieth century. This flies in the face of current global warming theories that blame a rise in temperature on rising carbon dioxide emissions since the start of the industrial revolution. Shaidurov, however, suggests that the rise, which began between 1906 and 1909, could have had a very different cause, which he believes was the massive Tunguska Event, which rocked a remote part of Siberia, northwest of Lake Baikal on the 30th June 1908.

The Tunguska Event, sometimes known as the Tungus Meteorite is thought to have resulted from an asteroid or comet entering the earth's atmosphere and exploding. The event released as much energy as fifteen one-megaton atomic bombs. As well as blasting an enormous amount of dust into the atmosphere, felling 60 million trees over an area of more than 2000 square kilometres. Shaidurov suggests that this explosion would have caused "considerable stirring of the high layers of atmosphere and change its structure." Such meteoric disruption was the trigger for the subsequent rise in global temperatures.

[KrustyKidd]

Very entertaining. I especially like the "the world hasn't ended yet" point. The absurd idiocy brings a wide smile to my face!

I'd just like to repeat what the idiot-in-Chief had to say:

""Good. We -- first of all, there is -- the globe is warming. The fundamental debate: Is it manmade or natural."

Important for everyone to see that this POTUS has about as much insight as the typical rightwing blogger!

Well Gerry, is it man made or natural? And, to what degrees? What chemicals are doing the harm and what ones are doing good and in what combinations? And, once we figure that all out, what actions need to be taken?

So, man made or natural and what is the breakdown?