• Welcome to the DeeperBlue.com Forums, the largest online community dedicated to Freediving, Scuba Diving and Spearfishing. To gain full access to the DeeperBlue.com Forums you must register for a free account. As a registered member you will be able to:

    • Join over 44,280+ fellow diving enthusiasts from around the world on this forum
    • Participate in and browse from over 516,210+ posts.
    • Communicate privately with other divers from around the world.
    • Post your own photos or view from 7,441+ user submitted images.
    • All this and much more...

    You can gain access to all this absolutely free when you register for an account, so sign up today!

[News] Global Warming: Media Hype ?

Thread Status: Hello , There was no answer in this thread for more than 60 days.
It can take a long time to get an up-to-date response or contact with relevant users.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Fondueset said:
This much is certain: Whatever may or may not be happening - it's the fault of republicans. And also Roy.

But more importantly - Roy's argumen, as presented, is nominally flatulent and here is why.

Awhile ago I was in a certain american city with my brother-in-law. We were walking around unarmed late at night and checking out some great music in various clubs. A lady-of-the-evening was standing nearby and hiked up her skirt - all the way. My brother in law looked at me and said 'Am I crazy - or did she just...' The fact is - she did - but the idea that this somehow confirms my brother's sanity is not logical.

Likewise - disagreeing with Al Gore's characterization of global warming in no way supports the embedded assertion that all those people don't think there is such a thing as global warming. They may just not like the way Al presented it.

What if somebody crapped on your front door step? Would you then launch upon and outright condemnation of defecating?

There is also a problem with presenting lists of people as a way of supporting your argument. It's a popular method among politicians and various interest-groups-on-a-jag but amounts to 'argument by loudest noise' aka 'allota somebody elses opinion'.

Besides, what are we to make of Nespot Ferqule of the World Oceanic and Atmosphereo Authoritay? Or Fenton Xutzvert Keybunkle of Wassa Madda U., Bleepo Nudjfrete' of Moskva Polyphrenic, Quang Argyle Methuse of the Directorette Climaticus, Hercule Smed Ophopleus of Das Incht ver Mediterreatio or Bunky Pooters of Wal-mart?

And what of the propheses of the great and ominous Volmar?

All I can do is rofl
 
Fondueset said:
This much is certain: Whatever may or may not be happening - it's the fault of republicans. And also Roy.

But more importantly - Roy's argumen, as presented, is nominally flatulent and here is why.

Awhile ago I was in a certain american city with my brother-in-law. We were walking around unarmed late at night and checking out some great music in various clubs. A lady-of-the-evening was standing nearby and hiked up her skirt - all the way. My brother in law looked at me and said 'Am I crazy - or did she just...' The fact is - she did - but the idea that this somehow confirms my brother's sanity is not logical.

Likewise - disagreeing with Al Gore's characterization of global warming in no way supports the embedded assertion that all those people don't think there is such a thing as global warming. They may just not like the way Al presented it.

What if somebody crapped on your front door step? Would you then launch upon and outright condemnation of defecating?

There is also a problem with presenting lists of people as a way of supporting your argument. It's a popular method among politicians and various interest-groups-on-a-jag but amounts to 'argument by loudest noise' aka 'allota somebody elses opinion'.

Besides, what are we to make of Nespot Ferqule of the World Oceanic and Atmosphereo Authoritay? Or Fenton Xutzvert Keybunkle of Wassa Madda U., Bleepo Nudjfrete' of Moskva Polyphrenic, Quang Argyle Methuse of the Directorette Climaticus, Hercule Smed Ophopleus of Das Incht ver Mediterreatio or Bunky Pooters of Wal-mart?

And what of the propheses of the great and ominous Volmar?

Very funnny, fondueset...rofl

But you gotta be fair here. Here's how i recall the arguement going...

Liberal Weiner: There is finally a concensus among all the worlds scientists!

Right wing nut job: Yeah but what about (insert multiple scientists from prestigous institutions world wide).

That's just a rebuttal. I mean, at least the neocons only claim a handful of scientists. The liberal kook fringe claims EVERY SCIENTISTS IN THE WORLD! That's what i would call amounting "to 'argument by loudest noise' aka 'allota somebody elses opinion'."

And as far as Al Gore goes...no one uses his defrocking as an arguement against human influence in climate change. That's just for fun. It's akin to a faith healer getting caught with a headset on.

And leave Volmar out of this, lest you excite his wrath and get us all smoted.
 
Last edited:
Fondueset said:
This much is certain: Whatever may or may not be happening - it's the fault of republicans. And also Roy.

Fondueset,
I miss your self-deprecating posts. Can you tell us again how enlightened the rest of the world is as compared to US citizens ?
Then again, if they belive in Al Gore's propganda they must be enlightened.
Were you late to CPUSA meeting when you typed all that ? rofl
 
Roy, you remind me of this guy I was sparring with once. He was so into his technique that he'd throw these absolutely stunning punches into the space I'd occupied like a full second ago and stay there kiaing to celebrate his victory for another 1/2 second or so. Like you he seemed pretty happy with himself.

As a personal courtesy I've left out the self-deprecating part.

I heard Rutger Hauer is a liberal
 
Last edited:
Frankly told, before I hit forums with US American members, I never thought Internet and Global Warming were invented by Al Gore, or that they are political issues. I always considered both (just as most of non-US-Americans) quite non-disputable facts of life. The only questions were not whether they exist, but how to handle them. Unfortunately, US-Americans seem to need to claim their copyrights first. It looks like US Americans wait first for the lawyers to solve the question who will get all the Global Warming owner rights before they even start thinking there may be a need to bother with it. Considering the speed of copyright suits, I am afraid we'll all cook before it is cleared.
 
Last edited:
With the topic of AL Gore, Yes, sometimes he is correct, just as a broken clock gives the correct time twice a day.
 
Fondueset, you crack me up. Roy, you're pretty funny, too.

On the 'beating a dead horse topic" of global boiing, er, I mean warming, what I'm finding most interesting up here in Canada other than the debates on whether we should adopt the 24 hour time standard and preserve our national igloo, is some interesting news from our neocon Prime Minister Stephen Harper about the Canadian North. It would appear that he is seriously considering advice from his Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Defence that there is a increase rate of melting ice in the Arctic that could eventually result in free passage for ships through the previously-frozen-solid-by-several-feet-of-rock-hard-Canadian ice in a decade or two. It would appear that despite his pro-Bush stance on opposing Kyoto, this has become an issue of strategic importance for the Canadian government's sovereignty.

Interesting bit: "Harper's announcement came after newly released military documents said global warming could open the Northwest Passage to summer commercial traffic by 2015"
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=42fb575c-4629-4196-b009-eec08f6cad34&k=32631

Interesting bit about the report from the US Navy in 2001:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-04-03-nwpassage-debate_x.htm

And if you look in the Conservative party of Canada's election platform from last year, you'll see, in very small print, in one little tiny paragraph so as not to attract too much attention, the mention of "greenhouse gases." So I guess global warming is a reality for my neocon government.

Does that mean that Stephen Harper isn't really a neocon, then? Bad boy!

Sorry about this digression that is completely out of character for me. I prefer to talk about freediving. But I guess I'm really excited about freediving in the Northwest Passage someday. Eat your heart out, Amundsen! Only thing is, there probably won't be any polar bears or narwals or leopard seals to chase by then... :( Or if they are still kicking around, they'll be REALLY pissed at us.
 
Speaking of diving - I went tonight again on the 'Sebastian Murat Pipeline of DOOOOM!!!' Where, in the twilit waters of the days end I saw... UNSPEAKABLE THINGS!!!

more on this later
 

Attachments

  • bassprofile.jpg
    bassprofile.jpg
    139.9 KB · Views: 147
  • drumdynamic.jpg
    drumdynamic.jpg
    99.4 KB · Views: 145
Last edited:
Fondueset said:
Roy, you remind me of this guy I was sparring with once. He was so into his technique that he'd throw these absolutely stunning punches into the space I'd occupied like a full second ago and stay there kiaing to celebrate his victory for another 1/2 second or so. Like you he seemed pretty happy with himself.

As a personal courtesy I've left out the self-deprecating part.

I heard Rutger Hauer is a liberal

Fonduset, I had no idea spitballs constituted "sparring", but then again in your little self-deprecating "world" it propably does.

As for Rutger Hauer, his job was to enteratin me, I don't expect more then that from him. You on the other hand are not even entertaining. Stick to what you know best - self deprecation seems to work for you.
 
Global Warming: Media Hype.

and now back to "Global Warming".

Here is how I see this so far:

1) Claims that "Global Warming" is caused by the humans, are at best a specualtion and in worst case, a politically driven propaganda (just like it was withthe " global cooling" two decades ago).

2) Two scientists have chimed in on the subjects in this forum so far;
First has pretty much admitted that "Global Warming" histeria is a good excuse for getting research funds. The second scientist has admitted to being a part of the governmental regulatory body which would directly benefit from the increased regulatory effort of the activities which may cause "global warming".
Both speak of "overwhelming consensus in scientific community", while at the same time ignoring the leading scientists who say "human caused global warming" is - JUNK SCIENCE.

3) Last but not least. I see that large majority of the "global warming" proponets are mostly politically driven, histerical leftwing activists, who wouldn't care about the "global warming" if it wasn't such a great tool to use in their anti-american, anti-capitalism, anti-western vitriole.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fondueset, it's time for a good, self-deprecating post.
Go for it buddy. (don't forget your spitballs).
 
Last edited:
I think there's enough to go around for all of us. There'll be both global warming and global cooling. As far as I understand, the melting of the ice cap in the north will cause a lowering of water temperatures in the sea, stifling the warmer currents coming up from the South Atlantic in turn causing enough atmospheric cooling to start an ice age.

Personally, being from a hot country I prefer global warming because in several decades my house that is now only a couple of meters above sea level on flat land a coupe of miles from the shore will become beachfront property, enabling me to freedive right off the front yard. My question is "will I live long enough?" if not, I hope to reincarnate into a freediving family! :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: flyboy748
laminar said:
It would appear that despite his pro-Bush stance on opposing Kyoto, this has become an issue of strategic importance for the Canadian government's sovereignty.


Clinton and Gore even had the good sense to oppose Kyoto.:naughty
 
It's kind of a funny story - the match ended after the guy threw a picture perfect spinning back kick into the space about a meter to my right. He was so tense he actually ripped the little toe off his grounded foot against the mat! The ref stopped it. During the fight I tried to take the guy seriously despite the fact that he was only attacking the air-space around me... a habit I still have; I'm afraid.

I have a feeling the guy's moves would have remained exactly the same whether I was there or not..

Not.

Essentially both sides of the argument at their extremes are basically afraid of change.
 
Last edited:
I would like all of you who are quick to say there is "Global Warming" to explain why South Africa has just been victimized by snow, their first since 1981?
 
bjpete said:
South Africa has just been victimized by snow


I'll bet there are some afrikaner kids on their first snow day ever who'd disagree with that statement...
 
I'm pretty moderate in my political views and have been doing a lot of reading on global warming the past few years. There are a ton of great theories, facts & research to both sides as to human impact on climate change. I honestly don't know where I fall on the side of "who is right".

My basic point is that if I go to two separate doctors (of equal training/schooling) and one tells me I'm going to die in two years if I don't alter my behavior and the other says you're fine, previous diagnosis was by a quack. Pretty much polar opposites, much like most of the science on global warming. I'm not going to quit my job and act like an idiot because I've only got two years left, nor am I going to ignore the first suggestion either. That's my analogy... how does it relate?

The left seems to be screaming to do everything we can right now to diminish our impact on global warming. The right seems to be screaming that the left is nuts. Seems to me, from my simple perspective, that the prudent decision is to lean a little left and try to do more to protect the climate and environment rather than just dismiss it as left-wing politics.

So, who wants to talk evolution... :t
 
cmaha76 said:
I'm pretty moderate in my political views .....

When considering two opposing views I frequently find that the truth is somewhere in the middle.
 
cmaha76 said:
So, who wants to talk evolution... :t

:D :head

Welcome to DB, cmaha. Pretty level-headed post......maybe too level-headed :hmm . No personal attacks? No condescending remarks? What's your angle?

Unless you can make a rats-tail and snap some asses like the rest of the boys in the locker room, you're not going to be allowed to play.

I have my eye on you.

Ted
 
Well it's all been in good fun.

I honestly think the left/right debate is just a distraction. The minute you identify with one or the other position you stop looking at the situation. It's much of the reason the USA is losing it's creative edge - the population and leadership are locked into pre-defined diads. Not to wax pedantic - but the genius of our government design is in it's triadic form. It's intended to continually maintain balance by shifting roles sort of automatically. Unfortunately attempts have been made by both parties to turn this into a diad as well - either by creating a fourth branch or by having one totally dominate the other.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.