Disappearing world: Global warming claims tropical island

Parent Cafe
101

<p>“Opie, thanks for the comments! I don’t have anything against Mr. Gore (”</p>

<p>No problem. My bad for the assumption. Some people here and elsewhere simply turn off to certain people and don’t listen. I try to (except for a couple of political newspaper editoralists on both sides…because they add nothing) hear folks out. It is interesting with certain political figures from both parties that once they are out of office they actually sound reasonable in their pov. It’s like a great weight has been lifted and they can finally speak their mind on an issue. Or at least sell their new book…:)</p>

102

<p>“right up there with those freaks who believe the 9/11 conspiracy theories.”</p>

<p>Bedhead, I was agreeing with the gist of your post until you got to this.</p>

<hr>

<p>"it is people like you, with your narrow points of view and extreme sanctimoniousness that prevents serious discussion about serious issues.'</p>

<p>Right. And you, zooser, are right up there with him. I am disgusted that both of you just automatically call me a freak and a whackjob just because I happen to believe that there is some value in the points raised by the 911 conspiracy theorists. There are PLENTY of reputable professionals who are questioning 911. You are so self-righteous about the fact that you are ahead of those who don’t believe that global warming is a threat, yet are doing the exact same thing regarding 911.</p>

<p>Yeah, disgusted is the word. You people, on a college forum…I would think you’d be above name-calling. Especially when you haven’t even bothered to actually look at the info with an open mind.</p>

<p>Open-mindedness is supposed to be an intellectual trait.</p>

103

<p>So is common sense.</p>

104

<p>Right. And common sense dictates that the best way to solve a crime is to objectively examine the evidence. Allowing one’s emotions to blind one from certain possibilities does not a good forensics researcher make.</p>

105

<p>why are some conservatives trying to paint being responsible for the impact that we have on the environment as a liberal issue?

</p>

<p>Or are they so simply afraid that they may be taken for a Gore lover that they ignore their mandate from God to care for his creation?</p>

<p>Doesn’t sound like they have the courage of their convictions- but there are many who do :slight_smile:
<a href=“http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5194527[/url]”>Evangelical Leaders Urge Action on Climate Change : NPR;
<a href=“http://conservation.catholic.org/[/url]”>http://conservation.catholic.org/&lt;/a&gt;
<a href=“http://www.fnen.org/[/url]”>http://www.fnen.org/&lt;/a&gt;
<a href=“http://www.crosscurrents.org/nature.htm[/url]”>http://www.crosscurrents.org/nature.htm&lt;/a&gt;
<a href=“http://www.earthministry.org/awareness.htm[/url]”>http://www.earthministry.org/awareness.htm&lt;/a&gt;
<a href=“http://ecoethics.net/ops/berrybio.htm[/url]”>http://ecoethics.net/ops/berrybio.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

106

<p>“So is common sense.”</p>

<p>and you wrote,“fundingfather: not quite so simple. While you are trying to exchange the keys of your gas hog for a gas sipper, they will have put another 1000 cars on the road in China.”</p>

<p>I don’t see a shred of common sense in the above statement. The most ridiculously nonsensical sound bite heard on faux.</p>

107

<p>Bedhead, here’s the initial quote that you were responding to: “And as a side issue, be deeply offended by the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11, and consider “true believers” of either of those things to be total whackjobs.”</p>

<p>Please read it carefully because it says exactly what I intended it to. The words “side issue” and the words “true believers” in quotes provided the emphasis I intended. The words “true believers” in quotes were intended by me to state and emphasize belief without scholarship or inquiry. You read far more and less into my words in your diatribes. My words actually are clear, but you are trying to twist them to fit your point of view. The particular emphasis was on “true believers” and I specifically referred to my offense at 9/11 theories (as New Yorker who was in Manhattan that terrible day) as a “side issue.” What part of THAT is not clear to you?</p>

<p>Here’s the cool thing: You can disagree with me, you can think I’m a whackjob if you want and that’s just fine. Great country, America, isn’t it?</p>

108

<p>“It is interesting with certain political figures from both parties that once they are out of office they actually sound reasonable in their pov. It’s like a great weight has been lifted and they can finally speak their mind on an issue. Or at least sell their new book…”</p>

<p>Very true, but in Mr. Gore’s case, I think (my opinion, no one needs to share) that he’s perhaps become a little to free to speak his mind in too much of a dramatic fashion.</p>

109

<p>"Right. And you, zooser, are right up there with him. I am disgusted that both of you just automatically call me a freak and a whackjob just because I happen to believe that there is some value in the points raised by the 911 conspiracy theorists. "
Your opinion is of absolutely no consequence to me. I live and work in New York City and was there that day, lost many people dear to me and had my life changed forever. Emotion aside, I have common sense and historical perspective of my city. As far as 7 WTC is concerned, the only important word to know if “LANDFILL.” You are, in fact, delusional and I’m not interested in placating or pacifying that. I will call you out on it every time.</p>

110

<p>

There are two categories of fools when it comes to global warming - those who say that it is not happening and/or that man is absolutely not responsible for it … and those who believe the case is 100 percent closed and that anyone who even questions the role of man in global warming is a whackjob. So far, I haven’t seen anyone here who falls into the first group. However, I certainly see that Bedhead falls into the latter.</p>

111

<p>Simba, sorry you did not like my analogy. I said if ff exchanged his gas hog, the Chinese would have added a 1000 new cars in the same time. I did not say anything about all US cars being replaced.</p>

<p>Actually I have decided to listen to lealdragon and open my mind to new possibilities. Scientists are telling us that there are countless billions of galaxies in the cosmos and there are countless planets that could sustain life. We need to consider that alien lifeforms are present on earth and could be manipulating events like the world trade center collapse and global warming. Certainly, there are plenty of people who have had encounters. If we keep our minds open we may be able to detect the aliens and figure out what they are doing.</p>

112

<p>“Certainly, there are plenty of people who have had encounters. If we keep our minds open we may be able to detect the aliens and figure out what they are doing.”</p>

<p>Edad!!! You made me choke on my tea! That was very, very funny. (If you find out what they’re up to, will you let us know?)</p>

113

<p>I surely detect/meet many aliens of all kinds right here on CC.</p>

114

<p>Fundingfather: It might be that you are not a whackjob, but are simply a bit thick. The following study closed the case. I quoted it early. The only cause for doubt has nothing to do with man’s role in global warming, but what the consequences will be for us of global warming. If you think there is any doubt about man’s role, you’re not paying attention or you’re not smart enough to follow the science. But I will withdraw the use of whackjob, which I had only introduced, by the way, because Zoosermon used it to group people who believed 9/11 conspiracy theories and Al Gore together.</p>

<p>But I don’t think I’ve won any friends here or that this discussion is going anywhere. </p>

<p>Barnett’s study at UCSD in conjunction with Lawrence Livermore Lab definitively put to rest any notion in mainstream and even partial fringe academic and research communities that man-made global warming is occurring. There is no MAYBE left in these findings.</p>

<p>It is a psychologically difficult thing to realize that your very way of life and that of your children is unsustainable as is and that it is dependent on a collective response. But that’s essentially the position that a lot of folks such as fundfather are in. Others, like gas companies, adopt a more cynical approach sometimes – funding people to fuel doubt about the science.</p>

<p>Reference to Barnett’s study:
<a href=“The Times & The Sunday Times: breaking news & today's latest headlines”>The Times & The Sunday Times: breaking news & today's latest headlines;

115

<p>“by the way, because Zoosermon used it to group people who believed 9/11 conspiracy theories and Al Gore together.”</p>

<p>No I didn’t. You weren’t reading very carefully! “True believers.” Search for it.</p>

116

<p>zooser, the fact that you are a NYC resident offers absolutely nothing to the debate. Perhaps if you could explain how WTC7 collapsed, so smoothly and symmetrically at freefall speed, when it was never even hit by an airplane, I would see the light and retract all my silly questions.</p>

<p>I contend that emotions are still very much a factor here. zooser and others find it more convenient to insult me (very MATURE behavior, I might add) rather than actually counter my arguments.</p>

<p>To find such behavior on a college forum is really quite amazing. I am guilty of nothing more than THINKING and ASKING QUESTIONS. Yet you continue to insult me because you find the questions uncomfortable.</p>

<p>And, btw, I am not a ‘true believer’ in anything except the quest for truth.</p>

117

<p>BedHead, let me understand your position: You quote a scientist claiming that his own study is the be all and end all of studies on man’s role in global warming and then buy into this claim with such fervor (or naivete?), that you feel confident in throwing out insults at anyone who might view this study as just one of many that needs to be evaluated and conducted to get at the truth. All I can say to this anti-science attitude on your part is yikes.</p>

<p>The fact that your “proof” of your position comes from a newspaper rather than a scientific journal should be indicative of the soft ground upon which you tread.</p>

118

<p>Lealdragon, I sincerely believe that you are delusional. That is not a snipe or a teasing remark. Your posts on this subject lead me to seriously wonder if you are mentally ill.</p>

<p>The collapse of 7WTC isn’t even a little questionable. Sad for sure, but not questionable. Landfill, that’s the bottom line and it’s an issue of concern that has arisen for literally centuries. There was a tv show a few years ago (before 9/11 and after a storm that flooded the Battery Tunnel) that discussed exactly how fragile and unstable the southern tip of Manhattan is and how vulnerable to seismic activity. The scenario they used actually discussed the collapse of buildings in the area and I can tell you from personal experience that the collapses of 1 and 2 WTC were felt from quite a distance. I’m sorry to say this to you, but the fact is that some bad people flew airplanes filled with jet fuel into two buildings and the resulting fires caused them to collapse and the combination of those things caused 7 WTC to collapse. I know that it’s scary to have to accept that there are bad people in the world who would like to kill you and your fellow citizens, but there are and, you know what? Those bad people aren’t members of the administration. If believing what you do helps you sleep at night, then more power to you.</p>

<p>I wonder if you would be gracious enough to offer what you believe to be the motive behind the destruction of the tower(s).</p>

119

<p>OK, finally, you have offered something intelligible. The landfill is a valid point. Does it account for all the anomallies? I doubt it, but that would be an interesting discussion.</p>

<p>However, you continue to miss my point. My point is that you have it all neatly figured out in your mind, and are not open to the fact that there are many, many, MANY discrepancies in the official story. </p>

<p>I have never claimed to have all the answers. I have only claimed to have questions. There are many others who have offered theories about motive. But motive is secondary to evidence. Evidence must be viewed objectively, and THEN, based on the evidence, a hypothesis for motive can be formed.</p>

<p>There are many books on 911 out there, Not all of them good.</p>

<p>The most scholarly works are by theologian David Ray Griffin:</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.amazon.com/11-Commission-Report-Omissions-Distortions/dp/1566565847/sr=1-1/qid=1167843373/ref=sr_1_1/002-5970522-5421614?ie=UTF8&s=books[/url]”>http://www.amazon.com/11-Commission-Report-Omissions-Distortions/dp/1566565847/sr=1-1/qid=1167843373/ref=sr_1_1/002-5970522-5421614?ie=UTF8&s=books&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p><a href=“http://www.amazon.com/New-Pearl-Harbor-Disturbing-Administration/dp/1566565529/sr=1-1/qid=1167843469/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-5970522-5421614?ie=UTF8&s=books[/url]”>http://www.amazon.com/New-Pearl-Harbor-Disturbing-Administration/dp/1566565529/sr=1-1/qid=1167843469/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-5970522-5421614?ie=UTF8&s=books&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>and physics studies by BYU prof Dr. Steven Jones. You will find Dr. Jones’ peer-reviewed work along with many other scholarly works here:</p>

<p><a href=“St 911 - Scholars Truth Ecological Improvements For Homes”>St 911 - Scholars Truth Ecological Improvements For Homes;

<p>Griffin in particular does offer explanations of possible motive in the abovementioned books. Dr. Jones, otoh, is a scientist and does not get into the motive debate but sticks to scientific research. He is a conservative who started questioning the official story because the ‘facts’ did not add up. He has some very valid things to say. You can see video footage of both of these men in this video:</p>

<p><a href=“http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4026073566596731782[/url]”>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4026073566596731782&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>If you were to actually watch the video in its entirety, you would see that these are rational, respectable people, not ‘whackjobs.’ WAKE UP!</p>

<p>I REPEAT: I am NOT trying to convince anyone of ANYTHING except that there are enough valid points to warrant an open mind and further research. I find it reprehensible that so-called intellectuals can do no better than call someone names rather than take an honest look at the issue.</p>

<p>There were some people who offered some valid counter-arguments on the ‘Controversial Topics’ (parent cafe) and the ‘Seeking Physics Scholars’ (college confidential cafe) threads. If you were truly open-minded, you would read those threads. Read the posts on both sides of the debate. UCLAri and kluge offered the best discussion in favor of the official story. Read their posts and click on the links they provided. But do the same with my posts and the links I provided. View this as something to be looked at objectively, instead of having your mind already made up.</p>

<p>If you are NOT interested in the debate AT ALL, then the mature and courteous thing to do is admit that your mind is made up, but have respect for someone who is still researching the matter. Calling them names is very juvenile behavior. Just because someone disagrees with you on something does not make them delusional.</p>

120

<p>Leal, have you read the Popular Mechanics piece? Perhaps this would help you. <a href=“http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html[/url]”>http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html&lt;/a&gt;
I don’t agree with your premise that there were discrepancies in the “story.” I believe that a catastrophic event is MESSY and this was certainly a catastrophic event. I’m not sure why you feel compelled to even research the 9/11 collapses (global warming, sure, because there is so much still to learn) and that in itself, is bizarre to me. I was, perhaps, unkind in the use of the term “whack job,” but your earlier posts were much less measured than the current one. I’m sorry that you are offended by my use of the word “delusional,” but that is what your posts say to me and I stand by that. Feel free to flame me if you’d like, that is certainly your right.</p>

<p>I would still be interested in learning what motive you think anyone other than terrorists would have to conspire to kill so many people and destroy those buildings. Also, why do you think they chose 7WTC to destroy and not the grotesque Deutsche Bank building which still stands in all of its monstrosity? I drive past the pit on the way home from work and I can’t even begin to imagine why any American would want to do what was done.</p>