Global warming...yes again

[mrjimboalaska]

Why not go to 'GlobalWarmingSucksBoard.com' and start them there?

Just curious...

Time would be better spent reading Glenn Beck's new book, "An Inconvenient Book"

 

[Kim]

Time would be better spent reading Glenn Beck's new book, "An Inconenient Book"

"Inconeniant"?????

Pray leave my toiletries alone Sir!!!!!!

Who the heck is Glenn Beck anyway?

[Quick google]

Errrr....OK.....doesn't seem to like GW Bush and:

Glenn Beck was raised a Roman Catholic. He was born in Mt. Vernon, Washington, and attended high school in Bellingham. He graduated from Sehome High School in 1982. His mother committed suicide when he was 13. One of his brothers also committed suicide, and another reportedly had a fatal heart attack. [5]
Beck is a self-described reformed alcoholic and drug addict. In the aftermath of those three family tragedies, Beck said he used "Dr. Jack Daniels" and heavy drugs to cope. He and his first wife divorced amid his struggle with substance abuse. Beck cites the help of Alcoholics Anonymous in his sobriety, and he eventually converted to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints which teaches against the consumption of alcohol.
Beck believes he has a personal relationship with God. "God STALKED me!...He had a giant baptismal RIFLE," Beck said. "I thwarted him. I led people ASTRAY as much I could but he kept putting Mormons in my way." [6]

Yup - he's probably worth listening to !!!

 

[mrjimboalaska]

Yup - he's probably worth listening to !!!

More so than Gore or the UN pundits........

 

[shakeybrainsurgeon]

Kim

Exactly what part of Beck's bio invalidates his opinions and is laughable? The fact that he was once a drug addict but now has a best seller, the third biggest radio audience in the US, his own CNN prime time talk show and, I wager, could buy and sell you a thousand times over? The fact that he is a Mormon? That he is divorced, or has tragedies in his life? I am a little perplexed why your posted excerpts of his bio should be taken as evidence that his views are worthless, even though you don't know who he is otherwise?

You revealed a little bit of your own biases in that post, I guess, by suggesting that recovered substance abusers, divorced men and Mormons have intrinsically nothing to say of any value.

 

[shakeybrainsurgeon]

Speaking of focusing on topic..., we've had non-stop threads running on global warming for several weeks now. I suspect that Andy's post describes perfectly how this thread will progress, assuming its allowed to remain active after the "you're a moron" "no, you're a moron" begins.

Why do you feel compelled to come to a scuba board and start new threads on global warming? Why not go to 'GlobalWarmingSucksBoard.com' and start them there?

Just curious...

The threads may run non stop because people are interested in the topic and, contrary to Andy's post, they generally run on topic and don't get that personal. I would ask why SB has forums for non-diving related stuff at all? If the GW threads belong elsewhere, so do a thousand other threads. GW, real or otherwise, is going to impact diving either environmentally or economically (with fuel taxes, etc) more than many of the other topics debated ad nauseum here, like football or how much we hate a certain LDS.

I don't think a moderator should be editorializing about which threads are "worthy" of being here, so long as they are not offensive, political or otherwise banned. People should, within the boundaries of the TOS and common decency, be permitted to discuss what they like without the staff demeaning them.

Just my opinion.

 

[Doc Intrepid]

I would ask why SB has forums for non-diving related stuff at all?

An excellent question.

GW, real or otherwise, is going to impact diving either environmentally or economically (with fuel taxes, etc) more than many of the other topics debated ad nauseum here, like football or how much we hate a certain LDS.

Bull.

I don't think a moderator should be editorializing about which threads are "worthy" of being here, so long as they are not offensive, political or otherwise banned.

Moderators may editorialize on any subject they care to, same as any other user.

People should, within the boundaries of the TOS and common decency, be permitted to discuss what they like without the staff demeaning them.

"Help, help, I'm being repressed!" Discuss away ad nauseum. When things get to this point:

"...screw you

screw your cousin

you suck

you suck more"...

Then I'll nuke the thread and you can begin again in another.

Just my opinion.

And you are welcome to it.

Dive safe,

Doc

 

[Warthaug]

Kim

Exactly what part of Beck's bio invalidates his opinions and is laughable? The fact that he was once a drug addict but now has a best seller, the third biggest radio audience in the US, his own CNN prime time talk show and, I wager, could buy and sell you a thousand times over?

None of that makes him an expert. While dismissing anyone because of mistakes made in their past is just stupid, so is assuming they know what they are talking about just because they are famous or rich.

We should dismiss Beck's opinions for the following very simple reasons:

1) He has no training or experience in the fields of climatology, physics, geology, paleoclimate, or any other relevant scientific discipline.

2) He has frequently, and quite publicly, made several incorrect statements about the science as it exists today, demonstrating that he lacks a working knowledge of the subject area.

3) He often dismisses studies for no justifiable reason; other then they disagree with his preconceptions.

4) He seems to think human-GW science is some sort of conspiracy; not exactly a sign of a stable or rational mind.

and lastly

5) He's compared global warming supporters to Hitler; not exactly a glowing endorsement of his impartiality.

Bryan

 

[mrjimboalaska]

Validated him in my opinion,
Global warming is happening, to what scale, we DONT know
Man Made? hogwash.....
Conservation, great thing and we should be more proactive.
Energy, TODAY, we should start the constructuon of 150 Nuclear Plants, WAVE all the BS Environmental Impact Statements, and get them under construction. START, DO, NOW
build 100 new refineries, and start drilling ANWR, the SoCAL Coast, and the Gulf on Mexico
tell the rest of the world, in 5 years, we will not buy Oil from a foreign source. We will buy as many goods from you as you buy from us, INCLUDING FOOD.
While implenting these plans, we need to work out how we are going to truck, train our products throughout the US on the limited oil resources.
THis would send a message, we are cleaning up our pollution output, but we have NO intention of being governed by some "One World Government" which is the UN's goal with Global Warming.
PERIOD.

 

[Teamcasa]

---

---

A ScubaBoard Staff Message...

Please stay on topic and keep it civil.

---

 

[Warthaug]

Validated him in my opinion,
Global warming is happening, to what scale, we DONT know

We know exactly how much. Its not all that hard - you use a thermometer...

Man Made? hogwash.....

And your evidence for this is...

At the end of the day there is a huge body of scientific work which demonstrates the extent to which humans are responsible. There is virtually no studies which show, or even suggest, that we are not at least partially responsible.

Conservation, great thing and we should be more proactive.

I agree.

Energy, TODAY, we should start the constructuon of 150 Nuclear Plants, WAVE all the BS Environmental Impact Statements, and get them under construction. START, DO, NOW

But where do you put the waste? Its not an idle question - we're trying to ramp up nuclear generation up here too, and the major limiting factor is disposal of the leftovers...

build 100 new refineries, and start drilling ANWR, the SoCAL Coast, and the Gulf on Mexico
tell the rest of the world, in 5 years, we will not buy Oil from a foreign source.

And that helps conserve fuel how? Why not take that same money and find ways to reduce fuel usage - energy independence without requiring mass development...

We will buy as many goods from you as you buy from us, INCLUDING FOOD.

Any sort of system like that would be in direct violation with NAFTA and a hand full of other trade agreements you country brokered...

While implenting these plans, we need to work out how we are going to truck, train our products throughout the US on the limited oil resources.

By local. Can't do it for everything, but it does save a lot of transportation-related CO2 for those things you can.

THis would send a message, we are cleaning up our pollution output, but we have NO intention of being governed by some "One World Government" which is the UN's goal with Global Warming.
PERIOD.

LOL, the conspiracy nuts are out in force today.

Bryan