Hmm, Global Warming anyone?

[Illuminatus Primus]

Here again we see a perfect example of a rightwingnut in action. Bereft of any real intellectual ability or supporting facts, the wingnut must resort to strawmen, arguments from ignorance, blatant lies, and flames to justify the protection of its masters' economic interests.

Oh, so he learned to generalize from you?

[Joe]

Global warming is not one of these ridiculous doomsday stories; it is a simple observation that the average global temperature has risen.

It is up to each person to decide whether this warrants a response, and if so, what kind of response. However, it is not disputable that the warming has occurred.

No, global warming by itself is not a doomsday story, but the fact that it is so often accompanied by all sorts of insanity from the eco-Stalinists leads many to associate it with doomsday stories. Blame it on the nutcases.

[Enlightenment]

Hey asshole, I've read magazines from the 1970s, and they all talk about Global COOLING

Deprived of facts to support its argument, the rightwingnut continues with its barrage of flames, straw men, and irrelevancies.

[beyond hope]

Global warming is not one of these ridiculous doomsday stories; it is a simple observation that the average global temperature has risen.

It is up to each person to decide whether this warrants a response, and if so, what kind of response. However, it is not disputable that the warming has occurred.

No, global warming by itself is not a doomsday story, but the fact that it is so often accompanied by all sorts of insanity from the eco-Stalinists leads many to associate it with doomsday stories. Blame it on the nutcases.

Exactly. There's been a temperature increase since 1976. That I have no problem with. What I have the problem with are the continual bombardment of end-of-the-world scenarios to the effect of "the oceans will rise, monstrous hurricanes will scour the land, horrible plagues will kill us all and it's ALL YOUR FAULT YOU SUV-DRIVING PIG!"

Take the Kyoto Treaty as a case in point. It would restrict the CO2 emissions of industrialized nations to 1990 levels. For the sake of argument, let's take it as a given that the temperature increase is due to CO2 emissions from industry and power. Now, the treay specifically does not include "developing nations" (including China and India, both of which have huge populations. So, what's the final effect on human emissions? Nothing, because CO2-producing industries can pull up stakes and relocate to countries where the treaty restrictions on their emissions don't apply. In the final analysis, it does nothing other than hurting treaty nations to benefit those nations exempt from it. That, to me at least, is what the global warming issue boils down to: politics and people using politics to their best advantage.

[Morat]

For the sake of argument, let's take it as a given that the temperature increase is due to CO2 emissions from industry and power.

There's no need to use that as an assumption. Its a simple chemistry problem. All you need is data on Earth's black body radiation (which can easily be calculated, or obtained by observation) and IR absorption spectra for CO2, which is easy to get.

The equations needed to determine the effects of any gas on global warming are well known, and can be solved with some simple calculus.

[MKSheppard]

Deprived of facts to support its argument, the rightwingnut continues with its barrage of flames, straw men, and irrelevancies.

That's a real compliment coming from the master of strawmen and irrevelancies...