How come Libs can never answer either of these two questions?

Question

(1) What's the PROOF of man-made global warming?

(2) What rights have you lost?

OK I'll give you smoking in a pub - - - but other than Bloomberg, who is no longer a Republican (and never was anyway), that's not from our side.

Usama there's a temporal correlation - a very rough one - between the Industrial Revolution and the present warming - - - - but no such correlation to past, similar warming / warm periods. It's BEEN warmer when CO2 levels were lower. Not a million years ago, a thousand years ago. And what do you mean "it has to be us" - - - you can't prove that it's something else, that means it's us? Is that a joke?

What do I know THANK YOU for giving the typical Lib non-answer - - - - "you're naiive if you don't know" - - - - you're proving my point! The Libs have no answers to these questions, it's all the Emperor's New Clothes - - - absent proof all you have is intimidation - - "if you don't agree you're stupid or bigoted or both" or "go suck a tailpipe repuKKKes" - - - neither of which is an ANSWER to a question that you should be able to answer if you're right - - but you can't, because you're NOT.

Zeldar, we know that it's been warmer when CO2 levels were lower. And "dramatically increased?" 90 parts per million over 200 years is not dramatic - - - that's less than
1 / 11,000th of the atmosphere that is CO2 that previously wasn't.

"When your floating by the Empire State Building"

Ok first, minus five for grammar/spelling. Second, try reality instead of movies.

Gabrielle "look around you" - - - that's proof, eh?

kevw you jump to hurricane classifications........ That's a whole 'nother assertion that remains to be proved.

And brown clouds? That's the COLOR absorbing heat, a local effect - - - that's not proof of CO2 causing GLOBAL warming.

And what the heck? "The 4th Amendment" - HOW?

All I get are "if you don't know, you're stupid" and bare assertions, no proof. Oh and one article about brown clouds having a local effect mainly because the dark color absorbs heat. I'll give you this that's the closest I've ever seen, at least it's proof of SOMETHING. All anyone else offers is "CO2 levels are up and CO2 traps heat" - - - but it's BEEN warmer when CO2 levels were lower and we can't explain those warm periods either (which is why some people have tried to explain them away but unsuccessfully), there are much stronger greenhouse gases than CO2, and the CO2 increase has been 1/11,000th of the atmosphere - which could be material but we don't know.
Again - not answers.

Uh, pip, yeah we have been through that graph AND THE TEMPERATURE INCREASES CONSISTENTLY PRE-DATE THE CO2 INCREASES.

This is also a chart showing patterns over 100,000 year intervals, not 100-200 year intervals. A chart showing 100-200 year intervals (well, except Mann's chart, which is the climateological equivalent of Piltdown Man) shows no such correlation.

Why did it take several decades for the warming to begin? The Industrial Revolution began about the same time as Napoleon's military career - - - yet the warming began 90 years later.

What caused the previous warm periods, when CO2 levels were lower?

What caused the shifts between warm and cool periods, when CO2 levels were lower?

There are plenty of local effects that man has - heat island, for example. People living close together and heating and lighting their homes has an effect - Manhattan would be 1 degree F lower than it is, if nobody lived there.

And brown clouds absorbing heat is another example.

And the effect of forest-clearing and using the water from Lake Victoria for irrigation and drinking water reduces the amount of moisture in the air, thus causing less snow to fall, and less ice to form, on the crest of Mt. Kilimanjaro, is another great example of the local effect of man's actions.

But the connection between CO2 and global warming is evidenced only by the very rough temporal correlation between this latest of countless warming periods throughout the earth's history, including three - two of which reached levels warmer than today - during human history, and the Industrial Revolution.

Sway most of them DON'T try - they just insult you, hoping nobody will call them on it.

Well I have.

And they're clearly not up to the challenge.

WS when soccer season is over I'm going to start a weblog - - - I'll send you the link when it's set up. 'Kay?

Answer 1

Because in both cases the answer is none, zip, notta. Libs are used to getting something from Nothing, like WELFARE.

Answer 2

It's because:

There is no proof of man made global warming. While some man made emissions may have had some effect on climate change, it is mainly simple climate change that has happened over and over in natural history. Ever notice that people who use this as a platform, like Al Gore, have a carbon footprint bigger than Texas? It's just a ploy to get votes.

No rights have been lost. I don't understand these pinkos that think enemy combatants should be protected under the constitution. They are not Americans. They are foreign nationals that have perpetrated violence on Americans.

Wiretapping has been used to track suspicious activity. Anyone who really thinks they're listening to you talk to your Aunt Martha in Scotland, or your Mother in law in Germany are way off the mark.

The supreme court has been rather conservative for quite a while now, but isn't rushing to strike down Roe v. Wade. Even Chief Justice Roberts has stated that he doesn't personally belive in R v. W, but it is the law of the land, which is his duty to uphold.

Libs have long preyed on those who really don't understand how a federalist government works. The President cannot just wave his/her hand and make it so. It's crazy how many democratic supporters think the president can magically lower oil prices, improve the ecconomy, institute national health care, withdraw troops and many other things the dems bark on to get elected. The President is merely an executive who can make their opinon known, but can only pass or veto mesures sent up from both houses. Military Learership, The houses of congress, corporate america and the world ecconomy control most of the things they claim they'll change. They can't.

Dems don't want you to rememeber it was them that got us involved in Nam, or how many times they have destroyed a prossperous ecconomy created by GOP leadership.

Wake Up America !!!

Answer 3

I don't have proof of man-made global warming but I do have a theory. That theory has to do with the Space program which was not around 100 years ago. When the shuttle is launched, gallons of fuel are burned to propell it through the atmosphere...and then when the shuttle returns it has to be protected from 'heat' of re-entry. I don't know if this is the cause or not, but to me it just makes common sense that there has to be some damage being done to the ozone layer with the constant up and down of the shuttle. I can also state from my own experience that when i was a child, we didn't have to worry about sun block when we went outside or UV rays.....and we didn't burn like you will today if you don't wear it.

What rights? Well the only one that I can relate to is the smoking in public places ban...but that doesn't bother me because I understand the reasoning behind it. I don't get into the radical thinking about 'big brother' watching every move I make,that's just paranoid.

Answer 4

We have a thousand times over.. you just don't want to hear the answers.

http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/scientific_evidence.htm

Check out that first chart.. it's called a Keeling chart.. it shows the temperature variations and CO2 variations over the past 400 thousand years... isn't it amazing how they mimic one another? Also.. CO2 is higher now than it has been at any point since man has roamed the planet.. coincidence? I think not.

As for rights... we have fought to keep Bush from invading our privacy with warrant less wiretapping.. It wasn't a complete victory.. but it wasn't a total loss either.



Quick Edit: You talk about how small a % the CO2 makes up.. all greenhouse gases make up only 1% of the atmosphere.. yet they regulate about 40% of the heat that is retained.. in other words they are very efficient and it doesn't take a large change to create a noticeable impact. So it's not a far fetched idea that they could change the global temperature by a degree or two... and here's the thing.. according to the ice cores only 2-3 degrees of global shift separate an ice age from an arid period.



Edit: The time frame that you are referring to suggest that CO2 is actually part of a FeedBack loop. One of those things that has exacerbated the cycles in the past. Feedback loops ALL cause global warming.. this is just the first time that an outside stimulus (man) has pushed a feedback loop to be a cause. Other feedback loops are ocean warming/expanding, more heat absorbed due to smaller area of reflective ice.. that sort of thing.

Edit: Is man the only cause? Of course not! The planet naturally circles the sun in a way that causes our orbit to become more elliptical every thousand years or so, bringing on more and less energy from the sun... The natural wobble of our axis also shift some from time to time.. all of these have an effect as well and it's quite possible that this is also part of the problem. But the sun only accounts for 0.2 degress C of the warming.. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070801174450.htm

So where do you suggest the rest of the heat is coming from?

Answer 5

Antarctica melting rapidly. This all began with industrialization of the globe. Take a look at China's quality of air. If you are foolish enough to think that all the crap this globe spews doesn't and won't effect the Earth you are a fool.

As far as what rights have we lost. Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin
If you can't admit to yourself that our Constitution has been trampled by this administration again you are a fool.

As far as the fact that the people you deem as opposition not answering these questions. Baloney. I have seen these questions answered many times.

Answer 6

1. Climate change is not a liberal-only issue.

And I have pertinent question in that realm for you to answer:

Please cite the Physical and Chemical Laws that suggest almost doubling the CO2 content (by anthropogenic means) of the atmosphere has no subsequent thermodynamic effects.

That fact is absolute proof is not always forthcoming, however, there are many discrete lines of evidence that indicate the a priori assumption that for "every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction" as it concerns manipulating the atmosphere.

We have long known that ALL biology interacts with the atmosphere and indeed changes it. It is the rate of change no that is especially alarming.

2. Concerning rights: How would I know if my privacy has been violated and that my communications have been secretly intercepted? Further, if you KNOW your rights have been violated in the name of national security, it would be difficult, if not illegal to reveal it.

Answer 7

In response to your first question, one shouldn't rely so much on scientific proof over common sense. Since mankind first stood upright, it was comon sense that told mankind that sex created babies. Science couldn't prove that until the turn of the 20th century.
It's pretty much a no brainer that when you overstuff a closed environment with any kind of living thing, that closed environment will get mucked up as a result. In my lifetime, the world population has increased from 3 billion to over 6 billion. It's again a no brainer to believe that many people are altering not only the face of the planet but the weather as well. Just the lost of forest alone to house these people has changed the weather.
Here's the nuts and bolts. We got twice as many people in the world using up energy and pumping CO2 into the air than we did just 40 years ago. We have less trees on the planet sucking the CO2 out of the air. We have less rain forest producing moisture. So is it silly to assume the planet will get drier and hotter? Are you going to wait 10 thousand years for science to prove the point or rely on what common sense tells you?

As to you second question, I can't think of any "rights" that have been lost.

btw. I'm not a liberal.

Answer 8

1) There is no PROOF. There is very little PROOF of anything, if you choose to look at it like that. Where's the PROOF that it's not man-made, or is man-kind innocent until PROVEN guilty on this one? There are mounds of evidence that say mankind is having and has had a profound affect on the environment. The real question is, why choose to ignore it?

2) I personally have not lost any rights. But if others are losing their rights or the government is making laws taking them away, it stands to reason that mine are in jeapordy.

Answer 9

uhhhhh

1. Constant warming trends that coorespond to increase CO2 from world industrial activity. Check http://www.ipcc.ch for the explanation from 3,000 of the world's top atmospheric scientists. This statement is what these 3,000 scientists found by looking at ALL the published evidence. They found that the evidence is incontrovertible that the earth is warming and it is 95% certain that this is cause by anthropogenic actions.

Since you are making stuff up in your edited response, I'll actually quote from the IPCC fourth assessment report:

"The global atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased from a pre-industrial value of about 280 ppm to 379 ppm3 in 2005. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide in 2005 exceeds by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years (180 to 300 ppm) as determined from ice cores."

"The primary source of the increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide since the pre-industrial period results from fossil fuel use, with land-use change providing another significant but smaller contribution."

"The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing, and very likely that it is not due to known natural causes alone."

"Eleven of the last twelve years (1995–2006) rank among the 12 warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature9 (since 1850). The updated 100-year linear trend (1906 to 2005) of 0.74°C [0.56°C to 0.92°C] is therefore larger than the corresponding trend for 1901 to 2000 given in the TAR of 0.6°C [0.4°C to 0.8°C]. The linear warming trend over the last 50 years (0.13°C [0.10°C to 0.16°C] per decade) is nearly twice that for the last 100 years. The total temperature increase from 1850–1899 to 2001–2005 is 0.76°C [0.57°C to 0.95°C]."

Any questions on my proof? You got any sources? Any proof?

2. What is important in American legal structure (so says my intro to political science book that I haven't cracked in years) is that rights are negative rights. The Bill of Rights says what the government cannot do: it does not say what individuals can or are able to do. This is why a right to healtcare or other rights cannot be amended into the constitution because they will not make sense in the flow. Anyway. The result is that we cannot 'lose' rights in any real sense. However, if the govenrment gets the right to do more, that reduces the permissive space for citizens to act. Allowing the government to do wiretaps (which were illegal) or allowing them to do detentions without judicial review both reduce the rights that Americans have. This is also why in most areas a citizen does not need to be a victim of government overstretch in order to sue the goverment for violation of their rights: the mere possibility of the government overstretching its bounds is enough to make the lawsuit actionable. This is a fundamental basis of all laws in America. Cool?

Answer 10

1) I'm not sure there is conclusive proof. Obviously if there was there would be no issue. It does stand to reason that the pollution we pump into the atmosphere would contribute to such an outcome; how much of an outcome is still in question. However, if we could reduce out pollution consumption and conserve our resources more efficiently, is there any downside to that.

2) Me personally? Nothing that I know of so far. Buthere are some examples from other people:

A) David Banach was charged with temporarily blinding the pilot and co-pilot of an airplane with a laser beam, claiming he was simply using the device to look at stars with his 7-year-old daughter. Federal authorities used the Patriot Act to charge him with interfering with the operator of a mass transportation vehicle and making false statements to the FBI. If convicted, Banach could be sentenced to 25 years in prison and fined $500,000. The FBI acknowledged the incident had no connection to terrorism.

B) Denver resident Mike Maginnis was physically assaulted by Denver police during Vice President Dick Cheney's visit to the city and then held for hours while being verbally assaulted by men who represented themselves as federal agents working for the Secret Service. The latter, Maginnis claims, threatened to charge him as a "terrorist" under the USA Patriot Act. Maginnis apparently tried to phone a Denver area newspaper, only to have his phone call disconnected when authorities discovered who he was contacting.

C) Activist Bev Harris was told not to reveal to anyone the fact that she and her website were being investigated under the Patriot Act. It is illegal for a government agency to go in and demand the list of all the members of a group. And you can't investigate leaks to journalists by going in and grabbing the reporter's computer.

D) Seventh-grader John McLean, a 12-year-old kid at Boys' Latin middle school, researches a paper on the Bay Bridge, and suddenly the Joint Terrorist Task Force shows up in the headmaster's office.

E) In May 2004, Brandon Mayfield, an attorney in Portland, Ore., and a convert to Islam, was arrested in connection with the March 11, 2004, Madrid bombings that left 191 people dead. He was held for two weeks as a "material witness."

Mayfield was released after the FBI admitted his fingerprint had been mistakenly matched with one found at the scene of the Madrid attacks.

But the government has admitted to Mayfield that his home was searched secretly under a special court order authorized for intelligence purposes, when if fact agents were looking for evidence to use in a criminal prosecution.

I ANSWERED YOUR TWO QUESTIONS. WILL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE IT?

Answer 11

1. There isnt any.

2. Not me personally-I wouldnt be around to right this if Id lost the same rights as US citizen Jose Padilla for a charge that was later dropped, then a second charge that was dropped.

Free speech zones were setup in Atlanta to prohibit churches and other religious groups from holding signs or protesting a gay rights rally.

Evidence from a case where the police had a knock warrant and barged in without knocking was able to be used in court.

There are many other cases.