Do you support Bush?

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
Pardon me, I was trying to keep it short. The debate is whether it is man made or sun made. Right now, the evidence points to being caused by the sun and not by my gas guzzling ozone poluting SUV.


[/ QUOTE ]

Name one respected scientific organization from any country that claims that global warming is do to the sun vs. burning of fossil fuels. Note: I am not talking about single scientists here.

Many of Bush's earlier speeches completely discredited global warming. Now, because the evidence is irrefutable he uses your definition of a naturally occurring condition.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Pardon me, I was trying to keep it short. The debate is whether it is man made or sun made. Right now, the evidence points to being caused by the sun and not by my gas guzzling ozone poluting SUV.


[/ QUOTE ]

Name one respected scientific organization from any country that claims that global warming is do to the sun vs. burning of fossil fuels. Note: I am not talking about single scientists here.

Many of Bush's earlier speeches completely discredited global warming. Now, because the evidence is irrefutable he uses your definition of a naturally occurring condition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where and when did the President say that it didn't exist?

Why not give credibility to single scientists? Is it because they aren't part of a wacko left-wing agenda?

Here is a small list of "Individual Scientists" that I came up with in less than 5 minutes using Google.
NASA Scientists David Lind and Judith Lean.
Dr. Sallie Baliunas Astrophysicist at Harvard-Smithsonian Institute for Astrophysics,(National expert on global climate change).
Dr. Madhav Khandekar- PHD in Meteorology and top climate scientist with Environmental Canada for 25 years.
Richard Willson- Columbia University Researcher.

There were more, but I HAVE to go to work so I can SUPPORT a welfare recipient somewhere. Try it and look for yourself, it really isn't that hard.

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Pardon me, I was trying to keep it short. The debate is whether it is man made or sun made. Right now, the evidence points to being caused by the sun and not by my gas guzzling ozone poluting SUV.


[/ QUOTE ]

Name one respected scientific organization from any country that claims that global warming is do to the sun vs. burning of fossil fuels. Note: I am not talking about single scientists here.

Many of Bush's earlier speeches completely discredited global warming. Now, because the evidence is irrefutable he uses your definition of a naturally occurring condition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where and when did the President say that it didn't exist?

Why not give credibility to single scientists? Is it because they aren't part of a wacko left-wing agenda?

Here is a small list of "Individual Scientists" that I came up with in less than 5 minutes using Google.
NASA Scientists David Lind and Judith Lean.
Dr. Sallie Baliunas Astrophysicist at Harvard-Smithsonian Institute for Astrophysics,(National expert on global climate change).
Dr. Madhav Khandekar- PHD in Meteorology and top climate scientist with Environmental Canada for 25 years.
Richard Willson- Columbia University Researcher.

There were more, but I HAVE to go to work so I can SUPPORT a welfare recipient somewhere. Try it and look for yourself, it really isn't that hard.

[/ QUOTE ]

I noticed you could not come up with one single scientific organization from ANY country in the world. Use google all you want. I suppose every scientific organization in the world is part of a left-wing pinko conspiracy. Individual scientists can be just as crazy as you. The peer reviewed organizations are the ones the world respects.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Pardon me, I was trying to keep it short. The debate is whether it is man made or sun made. Right now, the evidence points to being caused by the sun and not by my gas guzzling ozone poluting SUV.


[/ QUOTE ]

Name one respected scientific organization from any country that claims that global warming is do to the sun vs. burning of fossil fuels. Note: I am not talking about single scientists here.

Many of Bush's earlier speeches completely discredited global warming. Now, because the evidence is irrefutable he uses your definition of a naturally occurring condition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where and when did the President say that it didn't exist?

Why not give credibility to single scientists? Is it because they aren't part of a wacko left-wing agenda?

Here is a small list of "Individual Scientists" that I came up with in less than 5 minutes using Google.
NASA Scientists David Lind and Judith Lean.
Dr. Sallie Baliunas Astrophysicist at Harvard-Smithsonian Institute for Astrophysics,(National expert on global climate change).
Dr. Madhav Khandekar- PHD in Meteorology and top climate scientist with Environmental Canada for 25 years.
Richard Willson- Columbia University Researcher.

There were more, but I HAVE to go to work so I can SUPPORT a welfare recipient somewhere. Try it and look for yourself, it really isn't that hard.

[/ QUOTE ]

I noticed you could not come up with one single scientific organization from ANY country in the world. Use google all you want. I suppose every scientific organization in the world is part of a left-wing pinko conspiracy. Individual scientists can be just as crazy as you. The peer reviewed organizations are the ones the world respects.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here we go again, the classic liberal attack. Anything that doesn't go along with their belief has no credibility. FYI one of the "respected organizations" you are asking for such as "The United Nations eleventh Conference of Parties Climate Meeting" (since you lib's love the UN so much) wouldn't even let Dr. Khandekar into the meeting because they didn't like his belief that the sun has more to do with it than man does.

The scientists at the Armagh Observatory make these claims as well.

BINGO! Does anyone see a correlation here between the UN and bocablkr's stance on the issue?

Furthermore, how ironic is it that we are having this conversation and only two of the 15 countries that signed on to it are on pace to make the required cuts in greenhouse gases? LOL! Does it sound a little hypocritical to anyone?

I am PROUD that we haven't signed on to it and will NOT support a presidential candidate that does endorse it. All it will do is hamstring the American economy.

bocablkr, why can't you debate the issue with me in a civil manner instead of becoming so emotional and calling me crazy? Is it because that is all you lib's have when confronted on the issues?

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
bocablkr, why can't you debate the issue with me in a civil manner instead of becoming so emotional and calling me crazy? Is it because that is all you lib's have when confronted on the issues?


[/ QUOTE ]

Happy to debate you any time on the issue. You have not named a peer reviewed organization from any country in the world. Do you know how many countries are in the world? Are they all part of some UN conspiracy?? By-the-way I am not even close to being a liberal except on social issues.
Conservative on some issues and middle of the road on others.

You are just parroting the party line when it comes to environmental regulations and it effects on industry. It has been shown that environmental regulations actually create jobs instead of losing them. The other health and environmental benefits are just a plus. They said the clean air and water act would destroy some industries - didn't happen. The recovery of the Great Lakes region has added hundreds of thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars into the economies of the Great Lake states.

Down in Tampa the local power company spent almost a billion dollars converting their plant to more efficient natural gas instaed of fighting the environmentalists. A billion dollars. Did it hurt them??? Nope. They recovered it in 3 years because they were so much more effiecient. The CEO, a republican could not believe it. They are more profitable now than ever before. The area residents no longer complain of breathing and sinus problems. And they ended up added almost a billion into the economy. Rush and his ditto heads don't know what they are talking about.

[Borodog]

3 words for you: Broken Window Fallacy.

Also, giant power companies LOVE lobbying for more strict environmental controls that require them to spend billions. Do you see why?

I'll give you a hint: what happens to their smaller competitors who can't afford the government-mandated conversions in order to comply with the new regulations?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
bocablkr, why can't you debate the issue with me in a civil manner instead of becoming so emotional and calling me crazy? Is it because that is all you lib's have when confronted on the issues?


[/ QUOTE ]

Happy to debate you any time on the issue. You have not named a peer reviewed organization from any country in the world. Do you know how many countries are in the world? Are they all part of some UN conspiracy?? By-the-way I am not even close to being a liberal except on social issues.
Conservative on some issues and middle of the road on others.



You are just parroting the party line when it comes to environmental regulations and it effects on industry. It has been shown that environmental regulations actually create jobs instead of losing them. The other health and environmental benefits are just a plus. They said the clean air and water act would destroy some industries - didn't happen. The recovery of the Great Lakes region has added hundreds of thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars into the economies of the Great Lake states.

Down in Tampa the local power company spent almost a billion dollars converting their plant to more efficient natural gas instaed of fighting the environmentalists. A billion dollars. Did it hurt them??? Nope. They recovered it in 3 years because they were so much more effiecient. The CEO, a republican could not believe it. They are more profitable now than ever before. The area residents no longer complain of breathing and sinus problems. And they ended up added almost a billion into the economy. Rush and his ditto heads don't know what they are talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is good stuff. Attack, attack and attack some more rather than listening to another opinion. You are right, the rest of us shouldn't even post because you are the only intelligent one in the room, the one of "supreme knowledge", LMAO.

What "peer reviewed" organization have you provided that does? Again, I will repeat, what difference does it make if you have as many scientists say the sun causes it as you do members of some organization that says man causes it? You still haven't provided for me where it was that the President said it didn't exist.

If what you say is true down in Tampa, then that's splendid.

You can believe that man is responsible for all the global warming you want to. I guess mankind is responsible for the hurricanes too? I will continue to say that the sun is responsible for the majority of it. I will also say that the Kyoto Treaty is a joke and will hurt America.

It is quite evident that neither of us is changing the other's opinion.


"You cannot make a poor man rich by making a rich man poor".

[ALawPoker]

Oh, I didn't realize the unwarranted wire-tapping started back then. If that's the case, then I agree with you, he should have felt he had nothing to hide and would not have been trying to dodge political heat (at least, logically we can assume so).

I will say though, that considering how much of a no-brainer it would have been for the courts, the failure to use them was more likely due to incompetence/lack of knowledge in procedure/lack of regard/etc. (all of which, wrong), than it was a trampling of our rights.

[bocablkr]

Steve,

Do you know how to google. Just put in 'bush denies global warming' and see what you get. Below are some examples. I also have already told you that every single National Academy of science in every country that has one claims global warming is do to fossil fuel consumption. The National academies are among the most respected scientific oraganizations around the world.

Yes, globe is warming, even if Bush denies it

The Bush administration's mantra on climate change is this: The science is not yet in to prove a link between man's gas-and-coal guzzling habits and rising global temperatures that are causing glaciers to shrink, polar ice caps to melt and seas to rise.
Yet, as USA TODAY's Dan Vergano reported Monday, not only is the science in, it is also overwhelming. Last week, the National Academy of Sciences and 10 other leading world bodies said there is "significant global warming" that requires urgent action.
Another report last week further undercut claims of bad science: The New York Times disclosed that former oil industry lobbyist Philip Cooney, chief of staff of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, altered global warming reports to downplay links between emissions and climate change.

Bush Again Denies Climate Change By Antony Barnett

05 April, 2004 by the
Observer/UK

George W. Bush's campaign workers have hit on an age-old political tactic to deal with the tricky subject of global warming - deny, and deny aggressively.

Bush: Global warming is just hot air
The planet's getting hotter, ecosystems are going haywire, government scientists know it -- and still the president denies there's a problem. Guess which industry continues to fuel his campaign?