1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

An Inconvenient Truth

Discussion in 'Anything goes' started by Jeff Gluck, Jun 10, 2006.

  1. Here's some more from Dr. Gray, who seems to be something of a non-Baseball Crank.
    (Thanks, WaPo)

    Gray has his own conspiracy theory. He has made a list of 15 reasons for the global warming hysteria. The list includes the need to come up with an enemy after the end of the Cold War, and the desire among scientists, government leaders and environmentalists to find a political cause that would enable them to "organize, propagandize, force conformity and exercise political influence. Big world government could best lead (and control) us to a better world!"

    Gray admits that he has a dark take on human nature: "I have a demonic view on this."
  2. D.Sanchez

    D.Sanchez Member

    Now who's attacking the messanger? Throw enough mud and I suppose you think some will stick. Source please.
  3. Lugnuts

    Lugnuts Well-Known Member

    Good grief.  Nice job, Fenian.   ;D

    Sanchez - The U.S. Government issued a report a few months ago stating that it believes the upswing in hurricanes relates to greenhouse gasses.  I remember it because it was the same day Bush relaxed environmental standards in the wake of the gas crunch.

    I still think it's important not to do absolutes:  The reason is this, or the reason is that.  All it does is cause both sides to dig in, and nothing gets accomplished.  If we wait until we know the "exact percentage" of global warming that is greenhouse gas vs. cyclical, it will be too late.

    What we do know is that, inherently, greenhouse gasses are not "good."  It's as simple as that.
  4. D.Sanchez

    D.Sanchez Member

    A link to that report would be nice.
  5. Lugnuts

    Lugnuts Well-Known Member

    OK, give me a minute to go back thru my old posts....

    By the way, when you asked Fen for a source, are you familiar with what WaPo is?
  6. hockeybeat

    hockeybeat Guest

    WaPo = Washington Post.
  7. D.Sanchez

    D.Sanchez Member

    Article, column, chat, blog? Context? Link?
  8. hockeybeat

    hockeybeat Guest

    I presume this is the article Fenian is talking about: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301305.html
  9. Lugnuts

    Lugnuts Well-Known Member

    Sanchez - the link I had posted a few months ago was a CNN article, and it was NASA that had done the study, if I recall correctly... Unfortunately, that link is broken, and I have to go to work. I'll try to find it and post it by the end of the day.

    Meantime, this was from September...


    And answer this question for me: Inherently, do you think greenhouse gasses are "good," "bad" or "neutral"?
  10. And here's a little something from an organization whose chairman will be the next SecTreasury under that noted environmental moonbat, George W Bush.
  11. I'm reading a book about evolution right now by Stephen Jay Gould who is a professor of zoology and geology at Harvard and whose premise is that many of the popularly accepted concepts of Darwin's origin of the species are just plain wrong. But I wouldn't want to challenge any of your closely held beliefs because then you'd just start calling me names.
  12. BTExpress

    BTExpress Well-Known Member

    Whether it's global warming or simply unclean air or just the fact that clean is better than dirty, I maintain that anything we can do to reduce spewing greenhouse gases into the air is a good thing.

    How can conservatives (not working for the oil companies) actually argue this point?

    What's in it for you, Sanchez, if we completely ignore the threat? You were all gung-ho to invade Iraq on a POSSIBLE threat that was never proven.

    So why now --- with the planet at stake --- do you suddenly require absolute proof (not that you would believe it if it bit you in the butt) before you will concede that something needs to be done?

    "Well, my side says so."

    Is that really it?
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page