Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 2/20/2006 10:02:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/20/2006 10:03:12 AM EDT by raven]
Just heard this on Rush

"OMG! What is Bush doing conversing with a rational person?"

For those who haven't read Crichton's speech about the utter BS of global warming being pushed by the environmentalists, this is an absolute MUST-READ

www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote05.html
Link Posted: 2/20/2006 10:10:30 AM EDT
Read "State of Fear", it's a little far fetched but it's very clear what he thinks of environmentalists and the media.
Link Posted: 2/20/2006 10:10:50 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/20/2006 10:11:13 AM EDT by s32]
Everyone should read State of Fear.
Link Posted: 2/20/2006 10:12:26 AM EDT
State of Fear is a very good book... I love how his conclusions were trashed as junk science...
Link Posted: 2/20/2006 10:13:03 AM EDT

Originally Posted By s32:
Everyone should read State of Fear.



+1 on state of fear.
Link Posted: 2/20/2006 10:27:28 AM EDT
Awesome speech. Very down-to-earth and lacking in technojargon.
Link Posted: 2/20/2006 11:11:15 AM EDT
Of course Crichton scares the hell out of them. He can expose their lies in plain English everyone understands.
Link Posted: 2/20/2006 11:38:07 AM EDT
Sounds like something I'd like to read. In my opinion, the problem is those with vested interests or looking for some personal gain are lumping things together to create the best (or worst, depending on one's perspective) kind of lie - the half truth. There is no doubt that there is global warming. Those who would like lifelong research grants to fritter away would like one to stop reading right there. However, I question the causes of such warming. Is it cyclical? Or, is it something else natural, even if unique? These have to be considered as separate issues.
Link Posted: 2/20/2006 12:49:46 PM EDT
When I hear a Libtard talk about Global Warming I always give them the same example to debunk their idioitc unsupported "theory":

Me: "Take a pencil and draw a line that is 500 feet long. That line represents the age of the Earth. Now make a teenie-tiny pencil dot below that line somewhere. That dot represents the amount of recorded meteorological data we human beings have to "analyze." How the HELL do you think you can prove that a short rise in global temps is not a normal cycle!!!???"

That usually brings things into a better perspective for these idiots.

CMOS
Link Posted: 2/20/2006 1:02:19 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/20/2006 1:04:14 PM EDT by s32]
Crichton had some great stuff in the book and you can check his work cited in the back.

Right now the world is hotter than it was in the beginning of the 20th century but it hasn't been a steady increase. The temp peaked around the 30's (Dust Bowl) and then started to drop till the 70's. (global cooling scare) and then increased to the high where it is today.
The thing that stands out is that the global temperature was dropping for about 4 decades even though we were pumping out more green house gases.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/
Link Posted: 2/20/2006 1:05:48 PM EDT
BUSH WOKE UP THIS MORNING! GREENIES HORRIFIED!


Link Posted: 2/20/2006 1:19:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/20/2006 1:26:42 PM EDT by Zaphod]
From the speech:


So I can tell you some facts. I know you haven't read any of what I am about to tell you in the newspaper, because newspapers literally don't report them. I can tell you that DDT is not a carcinogen and did not cause birds to die and should never have been banned. I can tell you that the people who banned it knew that it wasn't carcinogenic and banned it anyway. I can tell you that the DDT ban has caused the deaths of tens of millions of poor people, mostly children, whose deaths are directly attributable to a callous, technologically advanced western society that promoted the new cause of environmentalism by pushing a fantasy about a pesticide, and thus irrevocably harmed the third world. Banning DDT is one of the most disgraceful episodes in the twentieth century history of America. We knew better, and we did it anyway, and we let people around the world die and didn't give a damn.

I can tell you that second hand smoke is not a health hazard to anyone and never was, and the EPA has always known it. I can tell you that the evidence for global warming is far weaker than its proponents would ever admit. I can tell you the percentage the US land area that is taken by urbanization, including cities and roads, is 5%. I can tell you that the Sahara desert is shrinking, and the total ice of Antarctica is increasing. I can tell you that a blue-ribbon panel in Science magazine concluded that there is no known technology that will enable us to halt the rise of carbon dioxide in the 21st century. Not wind, not solar, not even nuclear. The panel concluded a totally new technology-like nuclear fusion-was necessary, otherwise nothing could be done and in the meantime all efforts would be a waste of time. They said that when the UN IPCC reports stated alternative technologies existed that could control greenhouse gases, the UN was wrong.

I can, with a lot of time, give you the factual basis for these views, and I can cite the appropriate journal articles not in whacko magazines, but in the most prestigious science journals, such as Science and Nature.



This man just made it to the top of my "I wish I could have dinner with him" list.


Never forget which president started the EPA: Richard Nixon. And never forget which president sold federal oil leases, allowing oil drilling in Santa Barbara: Lyndon Johnson.

<snip>

I am thoroughly sick of politicized so-called facts that simply aren't true. It isn't that these "facts" are exaggerations of an underlying truth. Nor is it that certain organizations are spinning their case to present it in the strongest way. Not at all---what more and more groups are doing is putting out is lies, pure and simple. Falsehoods that they know to be false.

This trend began with the DDT campaign, and it persists to this day. At this moment, the EPA is hopelessly politicized. In the wake of Carol Browner, it is probably better to shut it down and start over. What we need is a new organization much closer to the FDA. We need an organization that will be ruthless about acquiring verifiable results, that will fund identical research projects to more than one group, and that will make everybody in this field get honest fast.



Jeez! No wonder they hate him! FACTS!
Link Posted: 2/20/2006 1:28:44 PM EDT
.
Link Posted: 2/20/2006 1:34:23 PM EDT
State of Fear was a great book. The best part was every fact used in the book was real and you could look it up to see where Crichton got his info.
Link Posted: 2/20/2006 2:24:11 PM EDT
I thougt State of Fear was an excellent book.

What really pisses me off is how fucking lazy the media is. The facts ARE out there. The fact is that we are basing all our assumptions vis Golbal Warming/Climate Change on what amounts to about 1 second of spotty data versus the vast history of weather change and climate shifts here on earth.

The fact is that we have VERY little understanding as to how solar weather actually afftects weather here on earth.

We're not really sure why all the green houses gasses could conspire to migrate to one convient spot and eat a hole on the ozone layer, if in fact that is even possible. Logic would seem to dictate that said hole in said layer would be above, or at least somewhere near to a large, heavily polluted city....L.A. Perhaps?

And then, there is the fact that ONE largeish volvanic eruption can spew as much pollutant into the atmosphere as has been suppsoed to have been emmitted by humankind since the industrial revolution.

How about the dreaded environmental dissaster of Cow Farts? Anyone remember this? More methane in fact, by a factor of about 1000 is emmitted in the atmosphere due to the natural decay of plant and animal matter than is released by gaseous bovines.

AH...but surely, the massive storm cycles we are experiencing MUST be a sign a climate change. You bet they are. Part of the NATURAL cycle this planet most likey goes through. But since we only have reliable metorological data on storm cycles for the the past 40 years or so, it's a bit hard to say conclusively one way or the other. Add the fact that there is currently a reather heated (no pun intended) debate going on as to what actually makes these storms form.....the guys who say that electromagnetic influences seem to be far more profound that some warm ocean water are pretty convincing at the moment. Which brings us fully back to Solar Weather and our very poor understanding of it.

But you never see any of this in the media.

Odd huh?


Sheep
Link Posted: 2/20/2006 8:05:37 PM EDT
I got in an argument with a green at work the other day. Of course I couldn't get a word in cause she kept interrupting and wouldn't let me talk. She said only industry had anything to gain from skewing scientific data and man is soley responsible for ruining the Earth. Of course she wouldn't listen to how CO2 makes up only .03% of our atmosphere and we're suppossed to accept that an increase in that would warm the entire Earth.

No logic got to her and I just gave up. BTW she's a liberal from Seattle that only listens to NPR and likes Michael Moore movies.
Link Posted: 2/20/2006 9:56:05 PM EDT
Crichton is generally very good at understanding and explaining current science in his novels. He does so well that the lay person won't catch his mistakes. He's very well read and does painstaking research on the topics he writes about. However, if you're in the field he is writing about, it becomes obvious that his understanding is spotty and he has trouble applying the things he's read coherently. It is just due to the lack of a general foundation of knowledge he would have if he spent a decade in the field, which is obviously something he can't do.
Link Posted: 2/20/2006 10:16:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Big_Louie:
Crichton is generally very good at understanding and explaining current science in his novels. He does so well that the lay person won't catch his mistakes. He's very well read and does painstaking research on the topics he writes about. However, if you're in the field he is writing about, it becomes obvious that his understanding is spotty and he has trouble applying the things he's read coherently. It is just due to the lack of a general foundation of knowledge he would have if he spent a decade in the field, which is obviously something he can't do.




So how does that invalidate anything he said, if anything?
Link Posted: 2/20/2006 10:20:11 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/20/2006 10:23:15 PM EDT by Big_Louie]

Originally Posted By Zaphod:

Originally Posted By Big_Louie:
Crichton is generally very good at understanding and explaining current science in his novels. He does so well that the lay person won't catch his mistakes. He's very well read and does painstaking research on the topics he writes about. However, if you're in the field he is writing about, it becomes obvious that his understanding is spotty and he has trouble applying the things he's read coherently. It is just due to the lack of a general foundation of knowledge he would have if he spent a decade in the field, which is obviously something he can't do.




So how does that invalidate anything he said, if anything?



It doesn't. I agree with him on that one. I was just making a general comment. Don't want people believing we can actually clone dinosaurs, you know. It is science-fiction

Well, I agree with some of that.
Link Posted: 2/20/2006 10:29:01 PM EDT
Tag for printer...
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 6:06:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Big_Louie:

Originally Posted By Zaphod:

Originally Posted By Big_Louie:
Crichton is generally very good at understanding and explaining current science in his novels. He does so well that the lay person won't catch his mistakes. He's very well read and does painstaking research on the topics he writes about. However, if you're in the field he is writing about, it becomes obvious that his understanding is spotty and he has trouble applying the things he's read coherently. It is just due to the lack of a general foundation of knowledge he would have if he spent a decade in the field, which is obviously something he can't do.




So how does that invalidate anything he said, if anything?



It doesn't. I agree with him on that one. I was just making a general comment. Don't want people believing we can actually clone dinosaurs, you know. It is science-fiction

Well, I agree with some of that.



I don;t recall him or anyone else claiming it was science fact.
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 9:47:20 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Zaphod:

Originally Posted By Big_Louie:

Originally Posted By Zaphod:

Originally Posted By Big_Louie:
Crichton is generally very good at understanding and explaining current science in his novels. He does so well that the lay person won't catch his mistakes. He's very well read and does painstaking research on the topics he writes about. However, if you're in the field he is writing about, it becomes obvious that his understanding is spotty and he has trouble applying the things he's read coherently. It is just due to the lack of a general foundation of knowledge he would have if he spent a decade in the field, which is obviously something he can't do.




So how does that invalidate anything he said, if anything?



It doesn't. I agree with him on that one. I was just making a general comment. Don't want people believing we can actually clone dinosaurs, you know. It is science-fiction

Well, I agree with some of that.



I don;t recall him or anyone else claiming it was science fact.



My point being that being a science fiction author doesn't necessarily make him the authoritative voice on global warming. Global warming most likely being a load of crap aside.
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 9:56:19 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/21/2006 9:57:08 AM EDT by Redmanfms]

Originally Posted By SheepDog_556:
What really pisses me off is how fucking lazy the media is. The facts ARE out there.



They aren't lazy. Greenism is a left-wing cause and the Green Party is a shelter for ideals that were formally the platform of the Communist Party.

The media knows very well what the facts are.
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 10:11:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Big_Louie:
My point being that being a science fiction author doesn't necessarily make him the authoritative voice on global warming. Global warming most likely being a load of crap aside.



From his bio:


Educated at Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, A.B. (summa cum laude) 1964 (Phi Beta Kappa). Henry Russell Shaw Travelling Fellow, 1964-65. Visiting Lecturer in Anthropology at Cambridge University, England, 1965. Graduated Harvard Medical School, M.D. 1969; post-doctoral fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Sciences, La Jolla, California 1969-1970. Visiting Writer, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1988.



Sounds like a hell of a lot more than just "a science fiction author" to me.

He has more scientific credibility than Al Gore, and that collosal fraud is held up by the "scientific community" as a luminary.
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 10:15:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By raven:
Just heard this on Rush

"OMG! What is Bush doing conversing with a rational person?"

For those who haven't read Crichton's speech about the utter BS of global warming being pushed by the environmentalists, this is an absolute MUST-READ

www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote05.html



Is that huge hole in the ozone layer BS?
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 10:19:46 AM EDT
I have more than a little experience with the, "Environmental Protection", is religion crowd.

The article linked in this thread is dead on.

Link Posted: 2/21/2006 10:20:52 AM EDT

Originally Posted By bgcc11:

Is that huge hole in the ozone layer BS?



You mean the one that opens and closes at random? The one that is located as far from the alleged source of its creation as is possible to get on the planet?

Yeah, it's there, but it's source is still completely unkown, despite the hysteria surrounding it.
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 10:20:58 AM EDT
Isn't Europe supposed to be covered in an ice sheet in a few years?
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 10:22:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Yossarian:
I have more than a little experience with the, "Environmental Protection", is religion crowd.

The article linked in this thread is dead on.




Is that huge hole in the ozone layer BS?
Does the article address the huge hole in the ozone layer?
Just curious
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 10:23:13 AM EDT

Originally Posted By CRC:
Isn't Europe supposed to be covered in an ice sheet in a few years?



Yes. Due to global warming.

Or is it that it's due to be covered in ice due to global cooling? That was the scientific theory back in the 70's....

Who knows?
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 10:26:04 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Zaphod:

Originally Posted By bgcc11:

Is that huge hole in the ozone layer BS?



You mean the one that opens and closes at random? The one that is located as far from the alleged source of its creation as is possible to get on the planet?

Yeah, it's there, but it's source is still completely unkown, despite the hysteria surrounding it.



Unknown, eh?
Hasn't it been proven that cfc's destroy ozone?
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 10:29:15 AM EDT

Originally Posted By bgcc11:

Unknown, eh?
Hasn't it been proven that cfc's destroy ozone?



Sure CFC's destroy ozone.

Where is your proof that the ozone hole in question was caused by CFC's?

You know, my mother died of cancer. Cigarettes cause cancer. Using your logic, my mother was a smoker.

Surprise. She wasn't.

Just because CFC's supposedly destroy ozone in a lab is not proof that a hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica is caused by CFC's.

Besides, if it WAS caused by our CFC's, don't you think it would make more sense for it to be located over the NORTH pole? After all, WE, the EVIL United States, are the cause of it all, right?
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 10:31:04 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Zaphod:

Originally Posted By CRC:
Isn't Europe supposed to be covered in an ice sheet in a few years?



Yes. Due to global warming.

Or is it that it's due to be covered in ice due to global cooling? That was the scientific theory back in the 70's....

Who knows?



I believe the theory goes
"once 20% of Texas, LA, MS, AL and half of FL are under water due to ice caps melting then the accumulated humidity will create more snow in the polar regions and create new ice so quickly that a partial ice age will reappaer".
This will cure global warming and will give Dallas easy Gulf access.
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 10:31:14 AM EDT
Greenies kill more dogs than LEOs.
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 10:32:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Zaphod:

Originally Posted By bgcc11:

Unknown, eh?
Hasn't it been proven that cfc's destroy ozone?



Sure CFC's destroy ozone.

Where is your proof that the ozone hole in question was caused by CFC's?

You know, my mother died of cancer. Cigarettes cause cancer. Using your logic, my mother was a smoker.

Surprise. She wasn't.

Just because CFC's supposedly destroy ozone in a lab is not proof that a hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica is caused by CFC's.

Besides, if it WAS caused by our CFC's, don't you think it would make more sense for it to be located over the NORTH pole? After all, WE, the EVIL United States, are the cause of it all, right?



Sorry to hear bout your mom.
The fluctuations mentioned correlate with the elimination of cfc's.
Kinda like proof.
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 10:33:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By bgcc11:
I believe the theory goes
"once 20% of Texas, LA, MS, AL and half of FL are under water due to ice caps melting then the accumulated humidity will create more snow in the polar regions and create new ice so quickly that a partial ice age will reappaer".
This will cure global warming and will give Dallas easy Gulf access.




Hopefully the flood will take ou San Francisco, too.
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 10:36:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Zaphod:

Originally Posted By bgcc11:
I believe the theory goes
"once 20% of Texas, LA, MS, AL and half of FL are under water due to ice caps melting then the accumulated humidity will create more snow in the polar regions and create new ice so quickly that a partial ice age will reappaer".
This will cure global warming and will give Dallas easy Gulf access.




Hopefully the flood will take ou San Francisco, too.



Most Blue states will be gone (great lakes will join).
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 10:39:12 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Big_Louie:
Crichton is generally very good at understanding and explaining current science in his novels. He does so well that the lay person won't catch his mistakes. He's very well read and does painstaking research on the topics he writes about. However, if you're in the field he is writing about, it becomes obvious that his understanding is spotty and he has trouble applying the things he's read coherently. It is just due to the lack of a general foundation of knowledge he would have if he spent a decade in the field, which is obviously something he can't do.



OK. How about an example?

You know, something concrete to back up your argument.
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 10:39:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By bgcc11:

Originally Posted By Zaphod:

Originally Posted By bgcc11:
I believe the theory goes
"once 20% of Texas, LA, MS, AL and half of FL are under water due to ice caps melting then the accumulated humidity will create more snow in the polar regions and create new ice so quickly that a partial ice age will reappaer".
This will cure global warming and will give Dallas easy Gulf access.




Hopefully the flood will take ou San Francisco, too.



Most Blue states will be gone (great lakes will join).



no, they won't.

ask archimedes for details on that.
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 10:39:55 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/21/2006 10:41:28 AM EDT by Yossarian]


Link Posted: 2/21/2006 10:41:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By bgcc11:

Originally Posted By Yossarian:
I have more than a little experience with the, "Environmental Protection", is religion crowd.

The article linked in this thread is dead on.




Is that huge hole in the ozone layer BS?
Does the article address the huge hole in the ozone layer?
Just curious



From what I know, the whole in the ozone layer, as stated above, is a naturally occuring phenomenon, and has been occuring for many many years. Many years before we had the technology to detect it.

My, point in the post is the following. Yes, there are some environmental issues (i.e. air pollution, variuos polluted water bodies, overfishing etc.) that can be remedied or the problems reduced. It is only logical to maximize the viability of our surrounding environment.

For example, it is better to take fish from the ocean at a rate that allows them time to reproduce and sustain the population for continued harvesting. This is preferable to taking all the fish at a single time.

However, where the environmentalists fall very short is their desire to ban or outlaw all things that are potentially harmful to the environment. They would love to ban all automobiles powered by internal combustion right now. They would love to stop all new development and limit news homes/apartments etc. right now and limit new development to previously developed areas. I have seen this in action, and they will use all means at their disposal to stop such things.

What the platform on all sides should be is that it is "responsible" to replace older more polluting technology with new less polluting technology as it is developed.
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 10:43:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By bgcc11:

Originally Posted By Zaphod:

Originally Posted By bgcc11:

Is that huge hole in the ozone layer BS?



You mean the one that opens and closes at random? The one that is located as far from the alleged source of its creation as is possible to get on the planet?

Yeah, it's there, but it's source is still completely unkown, despite the hysteria surrounding it.



Unknown, eh?
Hasn't it been proven that cfc's destroy ozone?



They might in a lab but there is no evidance CFCs caused a hole in the ozone.

Matter of fact we now know from measurements that Shackleton, Scott, Amundsen, and others took during the race to the pole that the ozone hole existed before CFSs were in use... explain that away.
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 10:45:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By bgcc11:

Originally Posted By Zaphod:

Originally Posted By bgcc11:

Is that huge hole in the ozone layer BS?



You mean the one that opens and closes at random? The one that is located as far from the alleged source of its creation as is possible to get on the planet?

Yeah, it's there, but it's source is still completely unkown, despite the hysteria surrounding it.



Unknown, eh?
Hasn't it been proven that cfc's destroy ozone?



They might in a lab but there is no evidance CFCs caused a hole in the ozone.

Matter of fact we now know from measurements that Shackleton, Scott, Amundsen, and others took during the race to the pole that the ozone hole existed before CFSs were in use... explain that away.



Coal?
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 10:47:58 AM EDT

Originally Posted By bgcc11:
Sorry to hear bout your mom.



Thanks.


The fluctuations mentioned correlate with the elimination of cfc's.
Kinda like proof.



No, kinda like speculation.

Since CFC's have been banned, the hole would have disappeared as fast as at appeared, or at least closed steadily. Fluctuations would not be the response.
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 10:51:20 AM EDT

Originally Posted By bgcc11:

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By bgcc11:

Originally Posted By Zaphod:

Originally Posted By bgcc11:

Is that huge hole in the ozone layer BS?



You mean the one that opens and closes at random? The one that is located as far from the alleged source of its creation as is possible to get on the planet?

Yeah, it's there, but it's source is still completely unkown, despite the hysteria surrounding it.



Unknown, eh?
Hasn't it been proven that cfc's destroy ozone?



They might in a lab but there is no evidance CFCs caused a hole in the ozone.

Matter of fact we now know from measurements that Shackleton, Scott, Amundsen, and others took during the race to the pole that the ozone hole existed before CFSs were in use... explain that away.



Coal?





How about the truth... the ozone hole is a natural occurring phenomenon.
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 10:52:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By bgcc11:
Coal?



Typical environmentalist response.

Nuke assertion #1? Change the assertion.

We nuke CFC's, and you move to coal. When that goes down, you'll move on to oil. Etc...
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 10:53:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By bgcc11:

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By bgcc11:

Originally Posted By Zaphod:

Originally Posted By bgcc11:

Is that huge hole in the ozone layer BS?



You mean the one that opens and closes at random? The one that is located as far from the alleged source of its creation as is possible to get on the planet?

Yeah, it's there, but it's source is still completely unkown, despite the hysteria surrounding it.



Unknown, eh?
Hasn't it been proven that cfc's destroy ozone?



They might in a lab but there is no evidance CFCs caused a hole in the ozone.

Matter of fact we now know from measurements that Shackleton, Scott, Amundsen, and others took during the race to the pole that the ozone hole existed before CFSs were in use... explain that away.



Coal?





How about the truth... the ozone hole is a natural occurring phenomenon.



Is that the truth or a theory?
The naturally occurring thing
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 10:56:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By bgcc11:

Originally Posted By raven:
Just heard this on Rush

"OMG! What is Bush doing conversing with a rational person?"

For those who haven't read Crichton's speech about the utter BS of global warming being pushed by the environmentalists, this is an absolute MUST-READ

www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote05.html



Is that huge hole in the ozone layer BS?




Is it man made?

Prove that first.

TXL
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 10:59:43 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/21/2006 11:02:40 AM EDT by Max_Mike]

Originally Posted By bgcc11:

Is that the truth or a theory?
The naturally occurring thing



The hole was occurring before the introduction of CFC… So whatever is causing it is NOT CFCs.

It is proven the ozone hole increases and decreases in direct relation to solar activity.

The conclusion is obvious.

That CFCs were causing the hole is the theory… a bad theory. A theory fabricated to drum up funding for the people pushing the theory. That is what the whole ozone scare scare was about... funding. Fabricate a crisis and then demand funding to study the problem. Welfare for creative scientist.
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 11:02:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TxLewis:

Originally Posted By bgcc11:

Originally Posted By raven:
Just heard this on Rush

"OMG! What is Bush doing conversing with a rational person?"

For those who haven't read Crichton's speech about the utter BS of global warming being pushed by the environmentalists, this is an absolute MUST-READ

www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote05.html



Is that huge hole in the ozone layer BS?




Is it man made?

Prove that first.

TXL



As posted earlier it's been proven in a lab. If the theory is true than a real world test would be most unproductive.
I like that the greenies (and science in general) uses the word theory and backs up theorys with evidence.
I don't like that (Y'all) demand that your theorys are true and demand that all debate cease.
Nuff said
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 11:02:57 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Zaphod:

Originally Posted By Big_Louie:
My point being that being a science fiction author doesn't necessarily make him the authoritative voice on global warming. Global warming most likely being a load of crap aside.



From his bio:


Educated at Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, A.B. (summa cum laude) 1964 (Phi Beta Kappa). Henry Russell Shaw Travelling Fellow, 1964-65. Visiting Lecturer in Anthropology at Cambridge University, England, 1965. Graduated Harvard Medical School, M.D. 1969; post-doctoral fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Sciences, La Jolla, California 1969-1970. Visiting Writer, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1988.



Sounds like a hell of a lot more than just "a science fiction author" to me.

He has more scientific credibility than Al Gore, and that collosal fraud is held up by the "scientific community" as a luminary.



Now those qualifications, on the other hand, do lend him scientific credibility. I'll go ahead and eat a large helping of crow now. You know, I thought about looking up his bio before posting...then thought "what are the odds..." and went ahead and posted anyway. There is some sort of lesson in this, but I'll be damned if I know what it is.

I still stand by my assertion that he does make mistakes when he incorporates science into his novels. Maybe it is intentional or maybe it isn't, but they are there.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top