Mr. Bloom explains Global Warming.

by Nathan Natas 41 Replies latest jw friends

  • villabolo

    Nathan Natas: "I also know how to make fools jump up and dance like the mindless puppets they are."

    Not really Natas. Provoking you is exactly what I did.

    "And Villabolo, my avatar is Nathan Knorr (CANCEROUS!), by the way."

    Your Avatar's identity seemed irrelevant compared to his age and again you're not responding to the point, namely that I wish you live longer than he did to witness (oh my, an unintended pun) the consequences of the state of mind(s) that feels and says:

    "All I need is for Earth to remain intact for another 20 or 30 years. After that, it isn't my problem. Meanwhile I'm going to make CO 2 and fart like there's no tomorrow."

    Goodnight Nathan, it's going to be a slow collapse.


  • kurtbethel

    Ah, another global warming thread....<ruffling script>


  • Farkel

    I'm curious. Which would make the global warming junkies happiest? That in a short number of years, all the ice melts and zillion of people die but at least they get to be RIGHT, or nothing happens and zillions of people don't die and they get to be wrong?

    Why won't the junkies admit that "cap and trade" will help stop global warming as much as trading around monopoly money will help stop the financial crisis? How does swapping energy credits around slow down C02? Did it dawn on anyone that removing 5 million acres per day from the Amazon Rain Forest for decades just MIGHT have something to do with C02?

    My motto is "plant a tree. Fertilize it with Al Gore's bullshit. Pray it doesn't die of suffocation."


  • What-A-Coincidence

    drible drible drible ... in the end ... this thread will be buried under a ton of snow

  • beksbks

    Farkel are you aware that one of the first things discussed at the recent climate change summit was deforestation? Are you aware of why the Amazon is being cut down and by whom? Why do deniers try to equate cap and trade with climate change in their arguments?

  • Farkel

    :Why do deniers try to equate cap and trade with climate change in their arguments?

    Uh, because the supporters of and trade do, that's why.

    "Despite the tough path to passage, the legislation is a significant win for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.) and the bill’s two main sponsors – House Energy and Commerce committee chairman Henry Waxman (D-Ca.) and Massachusetts Rep. Edward Markey (D) – who modified the bill again and again to get skeptical members from the Rust Belt, the oil-producing southeast and rural Midwest to back the legislation.

    “We passed transformational legislation which takes us into the future,” Pelosi said at a press conference following the vote, after she and other leaders took congratulatory phone calls from Obama, former Vice President Al Gore and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

    “It has been an incredible six months, to go from a point where no one believed we could pass this legislation to a point now where we can begin to say that we are going to send president Obama to Copenhagen in December as the leader of the of the world on climate change,” said Markey, referring to world climate talks scheduled this winter.

    Also, there's this which is crystal clear that the two are seen as inter-connected:


  • villabolo

    You have already been given the facts and the links which disprove the false statements that the earth is getting colder just because parts of the US, 1.5% of the globes surface, as well as Siberia and China were colder. However, they are not the whole earth.

    Most of the earth was warmer on average (Second warmest year on record, since 1880). North Canada was 10-18 deegrees fahrenheit warmer. The Arctic was basically spilling it's guts into the southern areas while staying warm most of the time.

    The whole Southern Hemisphere, in summer mode (summers can be colder than usual) was very hot, 110 degrees fahrenheit in Melbourne Australia and 92 at night (a hundred year record breaker); Africa on both sides of the equator, warmer; South America warmer except for a small part of the southern tip which was cooler.

    Those interested can verify most of this an many other issue in an easy to understand video line called Global Climate Denial Crock of The Week on You Tube. They currently have 26 videos debating the subject which are concise and simple to understand. On this BS issue of Frozen Hell in 10% of the Earth somehow disproving the fact that this was the second warmest year since 1880, I recommend the video "It's So Cold, There Can't Be Global Warming". There are two videos with similar titles for the years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. This one is the most recent one 2009-2010, running time 8:54.

    Since there is no point in trying to reason with deniers-we all know who they are-those who are really interested could take their time, at leisure, to thoroughly investigate one video's issue and start a thread on it. Whenever deniers repeat their statements, which have been repeatedly answered without any acknowledgment on their part (a form of mild spamming and trollish behavior if you come to think about it) thread after thread, do not even bother addressing them by name. Simply take the (pseudo)issue that they brought up and have a link referring to a previous answer or external link ready and address the general audience saying: "This point was brought up in . . ./Please refer to . . .."

    There is no need to and it is highly recommended not to try to even reason with those who have already shown themselves impervious to reason and simply repeat the same thing over and over again. We will simply burn out if we try that approach.

    We might also want to develop a pattern and try one video/thread every two weeks or so and not let the deniers taunt us into responding to their threads. At least the very low quality ones that are simply provocateurism. By respond I meant one more than two or three lines. Go ahead and give a link response instructing the general audience to go here or there or perhaps your link for an answer.

    Just bickering with provocateurs is a bad habit that I am guilty of every bit as much as everyone else. We do well to focus on issues and divorce ourselves from toxic relationships.


  • villabolo

    This is an example of what I was talking about in my previous post (1522). A minimalist response.

    Beksbks: ":Why do deniers try to equate cap and trade with climate change in their arguments?"

    Farkel: "Uh, because the supporters of and trade do, that's why."

    I recommend that any one who wishes to verify what little knowledge deniers like the previous one have of Left/Liberal opinions of Cap and Trade go to AlterNet, a Left/Liberal Web Site and do a search under, ahh, "cap and trade". You will discover a long series of articles on the subject all of them negative and against the idea of cap and trade.


  • villabolo

    Edited to add: Please press on first link since the second one in the box seems broken.


    The Story of Cap and Trade: More Scam Than Solution | Video | AlterNet

    5 posts - 2 authors - Last post: Dec 6, 2009 Free permits to big polluters, fake offsets and distraction from what's really required to tackle the climate crisis.
  • beksbks

    The science of climate change, and the politics of cap and trade are not the same thing. To imply that because cap and trade is a bad idea, climate change does not exist is a poor argument.

    No where in your quotes is cap and trade mentioned, there is more to legislative talks than just cap and trade. As I said above, deforestation was a key point at the climate summit.

    As a wise man once said

    To put it another way, much of the personal rancor would disappear if people were more interested in seeking facts and truth than in defending their positions at all costs.

Share this