Thanks Thanks:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Page 1 of 6 123456 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 55

Thread: Global Warming: "Patently Absurd"

  1. #1
    Administrator Ron Hill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Tustin, California
    Posts
    8,343
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Global Warming: "Patently Absurd"

    ELECTION 2012
    GOP candidate: Global warming is 'patently absurd'
    Republican takes opposite view of Mitt Romney, who thinks mankind is responsible
    Posted: June 08, 2011
    8:07 pm Eastern

    By Joe Kovacs
    © 2011 WND


    Former Congressman and current Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum is turning up the heat on the issue of man-made global warming, calling it "patently absurd," a stance putting him at odds with perceived frontrunner Mitt Romney.


    Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum calls man-made global warming 'patently absurd.'
    "I believe the Earth gets warmer and I also believe the Earth gets cooler, and I think history points out that it does that," Santorum said on Rush Limbaugh's radio show this afternoon.

    "The idea that man – through the production of CO2 (carbon dioxide) which is a trace gas in the atmosphere, and the man-made part of that trace gas is itself a trace gas – is somehow responsible for climate change is, I think, patently absurd."

    On Friday in Manchester, N.H., Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, took the opposing view.

    "I believe the world is getting warmer," Romney told a crowd of about 200 at a town-hall meeting. "I can't prove that, but I believe based on what I read that the world is getting warmer and number two, I believe that humans contribute to that. I don't know how much our contribution is to that 'cause I know there's been – there have been periods of – of greater heat and – and warmth in the past, but I believe that we contribute to that, and so I think it's important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may well be significant contributors to the climate change and the global warming that you're seeing."

    Limbaugh responded to Romney's remarks by saying, "Bye-bye nomination. Another one down."

    An astounding scam! See the full documentation of how your life could be changed by climate-related laws, taxes and regulations, in "Climategate"



    Read more: GOP candidate: Global warming is 'patently absurd' http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=308817#ixzz1OuRNwyRs

  2. #2
    Team Member Master Oil Racing Team's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Sandia, Texas
    Posts
    5,000
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    I was concerned about Romney's liberal past and the health care bill he passed while he was gov. of Mass. I can understand why he did it at the time, although I think he was wrong, but for him to still cling to the fact that it was good except his predecessors screwed it up, us just plain lying. He's ahead in early Republican polls because the news media wants him to be. Now that he has openly declared his concerns about global warming, I hope everyone sees tha charlatin that he is. He's stated the liberal viewpoint for votes. Someone you can't trust.

    I was concerned about his views before.....but now I know!



  3. #3
    Administrator Ron Hill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Tustin, California
    Posts
    8,343
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Well, A Billion Dollars Is What It Takes...

    The current regime spent a BILLION dollars getting elected. The Democrat Party will spend a BILLION dollars getting their man reelected. Hilliary considered running but knew she could not raise a BILLION dollars.

    To win this coming election, there is more than ideas and concept required, there is MONEY needed.

    When there are George Soros, NEA, United Auto, state unions, federal unions....Private sector workers need more than MITT ROMNEY!!!
    Last edited by Ron Hill; 06-11-2011 at 09:29 PM.

  4. #4
    Team Member Master Oil Racing Team's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Sandia, Texas
    Posts
    5,000
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    It's costing way too much to run for president. And what is really scary is that so much unidentified money is coming in. There was a number of unusual things that happened during the Obama run that I have never heard reported, buy I think they are tied together. This is just my opinion, but let's see if it repeats itself.

    After Screaming Dean got so much money over the internet in his run for the presidency, the democrats saw a golden opportunity. You have to give Obama credit for taking internet donations to a higher level. He cleaned house. But this is where it gets scary. Six months to nearly a year out of the elections there were a series of identities stolen from banks and credit card companies. The numbers of names and identities was massive. Then some months prior to the elections, a number of people had reported that their bank account had been debited for 250.00, but then creditied back in. There were very few news reports about this, but apparently is was done all across the U.S. Most people probably never even noticed it because their accounts were not off, and they considered it a banking thing if they even caught it. Enough did though that it became a news story for a brief time, and I forget the reason the banks gave. I think it was something like a software glitch that took small amounts out of people's accounts, but it was put back in. Now here's where I come up with my conspiracy theory.

    I noticed that Obama had an enormous about of donations over the internet for 250.00 or less. It was an abnormal amount of transactions if I remember correctly. The key is that political donations of $250.00 or less do not have to be reported. How many young people that know how to send money over the internet will have that kind of money to send. How many young people even bother to vote? A lot of the older people would just send a check, and the welfare voters arn't going to send their money to someone else. But just think of this scenario. Computer hackers in China steal hundreds of thousands of names from banks and credit card companies, then start entering the data in their computers. Hundreds of Chinese could enter all that data, then the hackers would use it to take $250.00 or less from accounts and send it via computer transaction to the Obama campaign. They then turn around and put Chinese money back into the Americans account so they wouldn't get suspicious and call the bank. Hundreds of thousands of complaints would lead to an investigation. By putting the money back, the Chinese would be able to finance Obama's election bid by laundering money through U.S. banks, and non of the transactions would have to be reported by name and address. I don't know if this really happened, but I say it's a very definite scary possiblility.

    By the way, did you notice in the news last week that hundreds of thousands of identies were stolen from Sony, and their Playbook accounts? This is after a 300 thousand person identity theft in Texas several months ago.



  5. #5
    Team Member smittythewelder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    560
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    There is not a glaciologist on earth who will agree with Santorum. Nor any old Alaskans who live near a glacier . . . or rather, used to live near the glacier years ago. The United States Navy and Coast Guard, the Russian Navy, and the naval forces of Scandanavia and Canada all employ numbers of Arctic specialists, and none of them will agree with Santorum.

    What cracks me up (as an old Goldwater campaigner) is having seen the days long ago in the Fifties and early Sixties, when conservation, the old word for concerns over the preservation of the the natural world and the waste of natural resources, and over looming global over-population, was a Republican issue!! Today's GOP, with its cast of conspiracy theorists, theocrats, and buffoonish Saturday Night Live candidates, would be unrecognizable to the intelligent, capable men who lead it in a different era; Ike, Goldwater, Nixon, and Ford.

  6. #6
    Team Member zul8tr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Orlando, Fla
    Posts
    690
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default theory or what?

    A huge majority for over a millinum believed that the planets and the Sun revolved around the Earth, but a few (Copernicus, Galileo, etc) believed they were wrong and time proved the few correct. There were even many as far back as Aristotle that believed projectiles were pushed thru the air by some unknown force once they left the influence of the propelling force provider. This theory made its way to Greek javilins and they incorporated blunt backs to aid their travel thru the air

    The proportion of man's influence on the climate compared to natural causes from the Sun is still under debate by many reputable researchers and differing opinions will continue because it will never be satisfactorily determined. Granted there is some man made influence to climate change but to be influenced by turning the natural forces by the puney efforts of man borders on futile and at a great cost that the world would sink to support. Just think of the environmental damage another Krakatoa volcano would do and man can not prevent such catastrophies and they will happen it's just a matter of when.

    None the less it is up to the indivudual to be respectful of the earth and take personal responsibility to do there best to pertect this planet in a reasonable and common sense way, if that's reasonably possible. with all the hype that displaces clear rthought

  7. #7
    Team Member smittythewelder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    560
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    There's plenty of hype, oh yes!! Great volumes of it issue forth from political-entertainment blowhards on radio and internet. Their qualifications to opinionate on very complex scientific research may be compared to the flat-earth crowd you mentioned.

    But of course, the overwhelming majority of scientists actually involved in studying the global warming evidence obviously are mere faddists, blindly following each other. Scientists, as we know, are mainly interested in shaking down the system for grants, and once they succeed, will amuse themselves with zany and bogus "research" that just costs all of us ordinary folks (who have common sense automatically because we're ordinary, and haven't been brainwashed by all those communistic professors).

    Well, at least with all those scientists, working with all our money, they are occasionally going to get lucky and do something worthwhile. When I was a kid, you'd run into people who had contracted polio, which you don't see now, oh, or smallpox either, which used to be a little bit of a problem. Yeah, alright, they did develop the organic chemistry for the plastic in this laptop, and the semiconductors and the vapor deposition techniques to manufacture the chips, and so on, so there's that. Okay, and they did come up with botanical breakthroughs we call the Green Revolution that have managed so far to keep up with feeding the seven billion humans, which is good because each and every one of those seven billion is precious, and contraception is contrary to the wishes of the Higher Authority, not to mention Nancy and Ronnie's psychic friend.

    But those are the exceptions, and mostly the scientists just line their own pockets while insulting our common sense by telling us that life on earth is far more than six thousand or so years old, and that our great grandfathers were chimpanzees. Yes, clear thinking is certainly in danger from the endless hype of the scientists!!

  8. #8
    Team Member Master Oil Racing Team's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Sandia, Texas
    Posts
    5,000
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    The breakthroughs you put forth Smitty were all put through rigorous and observable tests. Something that could be evaluated and repeated by others. The global warming hoax is based on unscientific and manipulated facts, and will change according to after-the-fact measurements or false and misleading data. When I was in college, the midwest was supposed to be under glaciers before the turn of the century. Since it became obvious in the mid 80's that wasn't going to happen, the junk scientists had to change their strategy to global warming. Sure the earth heats up, just as it cools down. The oceans are the thermostats. The sun is the heater, the clouds and moisture is the cooler, along with hurricanes to dissipate heat and move it northward.

    You are right about the scientists that can't continue to go to school all their lives, so break out and get involved in "research" to stay living on government grants. These are the ones that aren't smart enough, or ambitious enough to work for companies that produce real benefits to mankind. Instead they get money to study shrimp on a treadmill, whether or not plants have feelings and grow better listening to Mozart or Ozzie Osborne, Hinduism vs. dolphins squeaking, etc. We are being "had" by junk science, including those idiots at Center for Science in the Public Interest. Their goal is manipulating an ignorant public through false and misleading claims in the interest of a socialist agenda. You can see some of their work now in school cafeterias with the "Food Police. Exposing these creeps will eventually dry up their misuse of public (ie taxpayers) money.



  9. #9
    Team Member smittythewelder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    560
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Hoaxers!

    Well, somebody took the trouble to go back and survey the peer-reviewed papers and the critiques of that time, and found that a rather small minority of those involved believed in global cooling, despite a thirty-year cycle of cooling that was coming to an end then. More scientists, as cited in 1968 by the since-much-maligned Paul Erlich in 1968, expected a greenhouse effect. Of course the press, which never is very good at reporting the caveats which scientists always attach to predictions based on geologically short-term evidence, went for the headlines. Newsweek famously did a cover article about a cooling earth, a coming ice-age; the current editors have retroactively appologised for that issue's sloppy coverage. At least one of the younger scientists who took the lead in suggesting a cooling earth forty years ago has explained how he got it wrong then. And a Scandanavian scientist (my elderly brain can't pull up the name now and I just read it the other night) who the right-wing bloggers have cited for some years as a noted global warming denier is a denier no longer. They must have decided it pays better to be in on the hoax. And more fun! Wouldn't you like to have been in on creating that whole "moon landing" hoax ("Houston, the Eagle has landed")?!!

    If you get up to Seattle, Wayne, I can take you see a local favorite landmark for tourists and spelunkers when I was a boy, the wonderful Paradise Ice Caves system near Mt. Rainier. Oh wait, I can't, they're all melted. (Sure, it's irrelevant to cite one instance in one place. It was irrelevant for the non-scientist believers in global warming to cite Hurricane Katrina as "proof". But that's the way the issue is argued outside of scientific circles).

    Obviously we're not going to agree on global warming. But we could probably go through a list of proposed actions that the greenies want us to take against global warming and find that we would agree that many of them make good sense for other reasons, among them being CONSERVING energy, which would seem natural to CONSERVATIVES . . . and it was, fifty years ago.

    I enjoyed imagining being a thoroughly modern "conservative" in my previous post!! But dang, I see I forgot to worry about THEM taking away my guns, and a few other things. But it has been hard to keep up worrying about those far-Right warnings decade after decade. Oh, yeah, all those years ago the far Right had its well-paid demogogues, too. Where now you have Robertson and Rush and Glenn and the Tea Party, back then you had Robert Welch, Billy James Hargis, Dr. Fred Schwartz, and Liberty Lobby. That was fifty and more years ago that we were being told that if we kept electing the wrong people we would all end up under socialist (if not communist) dictatorship, with the liberal bureaucrats putting mind-control drugs in our water along with the flouride.

    Common sense? Goldwater (who scorned the above named opinionaters as "nuts") was wrong sometimes, but he had common sense. Religion was one's own business, best kept to one's self, and not appropriate in government. Abortion, revolting, but the woman's decision in the end. What does "conservative common sense" include today? Keeping a brain-dead Florida woman endlessly alive at hideous expense. Worrying that a five day old ball of fetal cells called a blastocyst has a "soul" and therefore let's watch China and other unenlightened countries become the experts on stem-cell research (credit Nancy Reagan, of all people, for calling b---s--t on that one!).

    On hoaxes:

    Hint: No one will take away your guns or mine (55 year old prediction, so far) in our lifetimes.

    Hint: There will not be one-world socialist government or anything remotely resembling it in our lifetimes (55 and 30 year old predictions, so far).

    Hint: Government bureaucrats will not attempt subliminal or chemical mind-control schemes to turn conservatives into docile liberal stooges (despite 50 years of putting flouride in the water, so far) ( . . . which I didn't agree with, BTW; it does stop tooth rot, but it rots the pipes).

    Hint: Jesus of Nazareth will not appear among us to take away the faithful in our lifetimes (2000 year old prediction, so far).

    I never have expected liberals to have a lot of good ideas, but I would not have guessed that the hair-brained notions of the far Right fifty years ago would be mainstream "conservativism" today. How has this happened?

  10. #10
    Team Member zul8tr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Orlando, Fla
    Posts
    690
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default hype or what

    Will a 1000 or more monkeys punching at random on type writers turn out an equivelent Shakespear sonnet? Maybe. Will a 1000 or more scientests turn out something valuable to man while researching something entirely different? Yes history has proved that. But those were relatively small research studies that did not put huge worldly resources (natural resourses, $$$$$, etc.) at issue, nor did they deal with the major natural cycles of the earth, sun and the solar system and mother nature that usually wins in that regard. Heck we are still trying to predict weather 5 days out with better than the flip of a coin much less climate years to come.

    This global warming issue (which I agree is happening, but the contribution due to man is the debate) willl effect the world as to these resources so we need to tread carefully before such a commitment to these vast resources is made. Be careful what you wish for it just might happen, then Krakatoa or something else that surely is beyond our control blows all our feeble fixits to .....?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Gore Tells O'Reilly Global Warming Caused the Snow of 2011...
    By Ron Hill in forum Boat Racing Encyclopedia
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 02-03-2011, 07:52 PM
  2. S510 - Global Food Fascism?
    By Original Looper 1 in forum Boat Racing Encyclopedia
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-01-2010, 03:28 PM
  3. Here we go folks - E-15 fuel
    By Tomtall in forum Boat Racing Encyclopedia
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 10-22-2010, 06:22 AM
  4. EPA declares CO2 dangerous pollutant
    By Mark75H in forum Boat Racing Encyclopedia
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 03-14-2010, 09:20 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •