| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |

This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
| |||||||
|
Sun-Beams out of Cucumbers Registered: 03/06/03 Posts: 21,289 Loc: The Ocean of Notions Last seen: 9 days, 18 hours |
| ||||||
|
I no longer believe in anthropogenic climate change.
That's pretty much it. -------------------- After one comes, through contact with it's administrators, no longer to cherish greatly the law as a remedy in abuses, then the bottle becomes a sovereign means of direct action. If you cannot throw it at least you can always drink out of it. - Ernest Hemingway If it is life that you feel you are missing I can tell you where to find it. In the law courts, in business, in government. There is nothing occurring in the streets. Nothing but a dumbshow composed of the helpless and the impotent. -Cormac MacCarthy He who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God. - Aeschylus Edited by Madtowntripper (06/17/08 10:55 PM)
| |||||||
|
Sun-Beams out of Cucumbers Registered: 03/06/03 Posts: 21,289 Loc: The Ocean of Notions Last seen: 9 days, 18 hours |
| ||||||
|
And yes, this is a political thread and doesn't need to be moved.
Like it or not, the issue of climate change has become highly politicized and is now a major issue in the campaigns of both presidential campaigns. Thanks. -------------------- After one comes, through contact with it's administrators, no longer to cherish greatly the law as a remedy in abuses, then the bottle becomes a sovereign means of direct action. If you cannot throw it at least you can always drink out of it. - Ernest Hemingway If it is life that you feel you are missing I can tell you where to find it. In the law courts, in business, in government. There is nothing occurring in the streets. Nothing but a dumbshow composed of the helpless and the impotent. -Cormac MacCarthy He who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God. - Aeschylus
| |||||||
|
about tree fiddy Registered: 12/19/07 Posts: 8,298 Loc: Tacos |
| ||||||
|
No kidding, the earth fucks itself up far harder than we do, ever hear of the mount Tambora volcano and the year without a summer. I mean come on, people are researching new diets to reduce a cows methane output(which is supposedly something equivalent to a cars). By that logic White castle stores should be shut down.
I like this, you should get some pissy replies, should be funny.
| |||||||
|
Sun-Beams out of Cucumbers Registered: 03/06/03 Posts: 21,289 Loc: The Ocean of Notions Last seen: 9 days, 18 hours |
| ||||||
|
I have a geophysics degree and am quite familiar with Tambora and other devastating volcanic events.
I'm also familiar with climate records we find in millions of years of rocks and preserved environmental samples that support constantly changing global conditions in the absence of any kind of human activity, many on a scale and at a rate dwarfing what we see happening today. I do not doubt for a moment that the Earth's temperature is changing. I believe the general trend is towards are a warmer climate, but you could argue that it is inconclusive, or even that the temperatures are falling. But I think the consensus is that there is real change happening and that human activity may play some small part. But I believe that the current climate cycle is part of a wholly natural shift that is and always has been taking place on this planet. Trying to fight something like this, assuming it's even ethical or well advised to do so, is for all practical purposes impossible. It's like trying to bail out the ocean with a plastic shovel. You simply cannot do it. I am of the informed opinion that many of these "global warming solutions", most notably ethanol production from corn and deep-rock carbon sequestration may in fact cause more, and in some cases much more harm that the natural process' they are intended to "prevent". -------------------- After one comes, through contact with it's administrators, no longer to cherish greatly the law as a remedy in abuses, then the bottle becomes a sovereign means of direct action. If you cannot throw it at least you can always drink out of it. - Ernest Hemingway If it is life that you feel you are missing I can tell you where to find it. In the law courts, in business, in government. There is nothing occurring in the streets. Nothing but a dumbshow composed of the helpless and the impotent. -Cormac MacCarthy He who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God. - Aeschylus
| |||||||
|
Registered: 05/31/07 Posts: 17,582 Loc: Americas |
| ||||||
Quote: Ah yes.... Kudos for delineating the issue as to anthropogenic warming, and for correctly reducing the relevant topics to whether we are to blame and whether we can do shit about it. The anti global warming, self titled, warriors I meet in person seem to be fools. They think cuz it snowed in april that the earth isn't warming and such nonsense. Of course the global warming supporters are the same, with little knowledge. You've identified the issue though: what is the evidence that we've caused anything? Not much. About all we know is that CO2 appears to positively correlate with temperature and other factoids. What is the evidence we can do anything to stop it? I've not seen anything (I'm genuinely interested if anyone knows something) I too agree the earth is warming, simplest explanation... What I don't believe is that anyone's demonstrated a way to stop this or that it has anything to do with us. People shouldn't waste gas and such, but more due to limited supplies. I just don't need some politician telling the US that we can't open factories here anymore... We don't need to shoot ourselves in the foot over something that isn't certain (and by that I mean whether the US can do a damn thing about it).
| |||||||
![]() Registered: 06/23/07 Posts: 7,953 Last seen: 1 year, 11 months |
| ||||||
Quote: What convinced you? I'm always interested to see why someone changes their opinion. Not that I knew what it was before. --------------------
| |||||||
|
Registered: 05/31/07 Posts: 17,582 Loc: Americas |
| ||||||
|
As a scientist, I'd hope madtown would answer, as I do, that he doesn't need to be convinced to not believe in a phenomena. He need only believe that evidence doesn't support it.
I don't think he's said yet that he believes its impossible or that there's proof warming is not happening as a result of human endeavors. Someone advancing a theory should have the burden of demonstrating it.
| |||||||
|
Error: divide byzero Registered: 04/27/01 Posts: 23,480 Loc: Caribbean Last seen: 3 months, 8 days |
| ||||||
|
> About all we know is that CO2 appears to positively correlate with temperature and other factoids.
The problem is that we don't know if CO2 is the horse or the cart (which came first, CO2 or warming). Pro-global-warming people will post graphs proving that the cart comes first. Anti-global-warming people will post the same graphs proving that the horse comes first. > What I don't believe is that anyone's demonstrated a way to stop this or that it has anything to do with us. Even more to the point, should humans try to stop it? If it is natural, then we are mucking with mother nature. If it is anthropogenic, then we need to stop the cause, rather than treating the symptoms and let mother nature fix herself. (In other words, instead of covering glaciers to keep them from melting, why not stop XYZ that causes the glaciers to melt in the first place... assuming XYZ leads to anthropogenic climate change.) > But I believe that the current climate cycle is part of a wholly natural shift that is and always has been taking place on this planet. I take a careful position on this. I believe, based upon historic evidence, that the Earth's climate would be warming right now even if humans were not present. I also have little doubt that mankind impacts the climate. What I cannot decide, and what has not been proven (in my non-expert opinion), is how much, if any, mankind's impact on the climate alters normal dynamic climate change. What really annoys me is the militant attitude the global warming crowd (both professional and layman) takes with non-global warming climatologists. Professional scientists are getting death threats because their research doesn't agree with the global warming crowd. These same people try to deny the anti-global warming scientists access to climate symposiums. The global warming issue has been hijacked by politics. It is no longer a scientific debate, but a political one, much the same way that drug addiction is no longer a medical issue, but a political/criminal issue instead. -------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
| |||||||
|
Human Being ![]() Registered: 10/03/04 Posts: 7,894 Loc: Here & Now |
| ||||||
|
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the IPCC) is perhaps the largest and most authoritative group to address modern climate change on planet earth. It is composed of large numbers of the scientific community "tasked to evaluate the risk of climate change caused by human activity. The panel was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), two organizations of the United Nations." The panel bases its conclusions on peer-reviewed and published scientific literature.
The consensus of the IPCC is that:
And as far as the relationship between CO2 and climate change is concerned, the greenhouse effect has been well documented and researched for more than a century. In a nutshell, CO2 is being released into the atmosphere in quantities not seen for hundreds of thousands of years. CO2 absorbs infrared radiation, causing an increase in the mean atmospheric temperature. It's possible that an increase in temperature would cause an increase in CO2, though I'm not sure how that would work. And if indeed an increase in temperature leads to an increase in CO2, then that would just be another positive feedback loop to increase the global warming. Check out the Executive Summary and page 40 (FAQ 9.2) from Ch. 9 of the IPCC's 4th Assessment Quote: Quote: Quote: -------------------- "What is in us that turns a deaf ear to the cries of human suffering?" "Belief is a beautiful armor But makes for the heaviest sword" - John Mayer Making the noise "penicillin" is no substitute for actually taking penicillin. "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." -Abraham Lincoln
| |||||||
|
Sun-Beams out of Cucumbers Registered: 03/06/03 Posts: 21,289 Loc: The Ocean of Notions Last seen: 9 days, 18 hours |
| ||||||
|
Like I said above, these changes have been happening throughout billions of years absent any human activity.
Why does only this recent change have to be attributed to humans? -------------------- After one comes, through contact with it's administrators, no longer to cherish greatly the law as a remedy in abuses, then the bottle becomes a sovereign means of direct action. If you cannot throw it at least you can always drink out of it. - Ernest Hemingway If it is life that you feel you are missing I can tell you where to find it. In the law courts, in business, in government. There is nothing occurring in the streets. Nothing but a dumbshow composed of the helpless and the impotent. -Cormac MacCarthy He who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God. - Aeschylus
| |||||||
|
Human Being ![]() Registered: 10/03/04 Posts: 7,894 Loc: Here & Now |
| ||||||
|
It's true, greenhouse gases have fluctuated throughout the history of our planet, however, the data is pretty clear that since the industrial revolution, the rapid increase of long-lived greenhouse gases we have seen has been anthropogenic (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessme
![]() Here you can see the dramatic increase of fossil carbon emissions over the past few hundred years. ![]() "This figure shows the variations in concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere during the last 400 thousand years. Throughout most of the record, the largest changes can be related to glacial/interglacial cycles within the current ice age. Although the glacial cycles are most directly caused by changes in the Earth's orbit (i.e. Milankovitch cycles), these changes also influence the carbon cycle, which in turn feeds back into the glacial system. Since the Industrial Revolution, circa 1800, the burning of fossil fuels has caused a dramatic increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, reaching levels unprecedented in the last 400 thousand years. This increase has been implicated as a primary cause of global warming." This recent change has to be attributed to humans because it is the result of human activity. -------------------- "What is in us that turns a deaf ear to the cries of human suffering?" "Belief is a beautiful armor But makes for the heaviest sword" - John Mayer Making the noise "penicillin" is no substitute for actually taking penicillin. "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." -Abraham Lincoln
| |||||||
|
Sun-Beams out of Cucumbers Registered: 03/06/03 Posts: 21,289 Loc: The Ocean of Notions Last seen: 9 days, 18 hours |
| ||||||
|
Absolutely not.
Human activity has undoubtedly added CO2 to the atmosphere that was previously contained in environmental sinks. But saying that is causing any warming we have now, WITH NO REGARD for any other natural process' which, as I've stated, have been occurring for billions of years w/out human intervention is ignorant. How do you know the two are not completely coincidental? The fact that these changes have been happening thousands of times in the past in the absence of human-introduced CO2 should tell you there are other possible ways to heat the Earth. -------------------- After one comes, through contact with it's administrators, no longer to cherish greatly the law as a remedy in abuses, then the bottle becomes a sovereign means of direct action. If you cannot throw it at least you can always drink out of it. - Ernest Hemingway If it is life that you feel you are missing I can tell you where to find it. In the law courts, in business, in government. There is nothing occurring in the streets. Nothing but a dumbshow composed of the helpless and the impotent. -Cormac MacCarthy He who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God. - Aeschylus
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
|
It should tell someone that. When there's money to be made, though, watch out.
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
You guys got a choice... drop the science and start talking policy or see this thread sent off to the Science and Technology forum. Up to you.
Phred
| |||||||
|
Human Being ![]() Registered: 10/03/04 Posts: 7,894 Loc: Here & Now |
| ||||||
|
But saying that is causing any warming we have now, WITH NO REGARD for any other natural process' which, as I've stated, have been occurring for billions of years w/out human intervention is ignorant.
"Other natural processes." Okay, these could include solar forcing, the release of carbon and methane from arctic tundra & wetlands, massive volcanic eruptions, changes in the earth's orbit or orientation towards the sun, and explosions from large meteors hitting the earth. (am i forgetting anything?) Solar forcing: Quote: The release of carbon and methane from permafrost sinks: This definitely adds to the global climate change. However, these compounds have been locked away in the permafrost for over 10,000 years. They don't just get spontaneously released. There are two things that are releasing them: human development in regions near the permafrost, and the increase in global temperature from post-industrial revolution human greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, although this is a 'natural' source, it is being added to the atmosphere because of human activity. Massive volcanic eruptions: Check it out: http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/ Changes in earth's orbit (orbital forcing) or orientation to sun: The data from orbital forcing suggest that the earth should in fact be in a cooling cycle right now. Check out Crowley's page here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/p -------------------- "What is in us that turns a deaf ear to the cries of human suffering?" "Belief is a beautiful armor But makes for the heaviest sword" - John Mayer Making the noise "penicillin" is no substitute for actually taking penicillin. "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." -Abraham Lincoln
| |||||||
|
Human Being ![]() Registered: 10/03/04 Posts: 7,894 Loc: Here & Now |
| ||||||
Quote: There have been a number of climate change threads on this board that seem much better suited for science and technology. I'm not entirely sure why they've been posted here in the first place. -------------------- "What is in us that turns a deaf ear to the cries of human suffering?" "Belief is a beautiful armor But makes for the heaviest sword" - John Mayer Making the noise "penicillin" is no substitute for actually taking penicillin. "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." -Abraham Lincoln
| |||||||
|
Error: divide byzero Registered: 04/27/01 Posts: 23,480 Loc: Caribbean Last seen: 3 months, 8 days |
| ||||||
|
> The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
The politics panel blah blah blah blah ... Exactly the problem I was trying to illustrate with my previous post. Quote: The fact that this post is in political discussion rather than science & tech yet again illustrates my point. The "global warming" science is no more legitimate than the "war on drugs" science. Politics, not science, drives both. -------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
|
There was a "War on Drugs" Science?
| |||||||
|
Sun-Beams out of Cucumbers Registered: 03/06/03 Posts: 21,289 Loc: The Ocean of Notions Last seen: 9 days, 18 hours |
| ||||||
Quote: Ugh. Just don't click on the thread again if the content is that objectionable to you. Some things are neither fish nor fowl, politics or science, and are in fact some combination of both. This conversation is likely to vacillate back and forth between the two discussions, and moving it to Sci&Tech would leave it just as out of place there. Again, if you don't want to read about it, don't click on it. But don't move everything you don't want to hear about. -------------------- After one comes, through contact with it's administrators, no longer to cherish greatly the law as a remedy in abuses, then the bottle becomes a sovereign means of direct action. If you cannot throw it at least you can always drink out of it. - Ernest Hemingway If it is life that you feel you are missing I can tell you where to find it. In the law courts, in business, in government. There is nothing occurring in the streets. Nothing but a dumbshow composed of the helpless and the impotent. -Cormac MacCarthy He who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God. - Aeschylus
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
If it stays on policy, it stays here. If it's going to be another case of "dueling graphs", it's going to Science and Technology.
Phred
| |||||||
|
Human Being ![]() Registered: 10/03/04 Posts: 7,894 Loc: Here & Now |
| ||||||
Quote: You're right...global warming is no longer a scientific debate. Nope, no more scientific research and analysis or anything like that. . I do see what you are getting at, and it's definitely true that there are a lot of politics involved in the climate change discussion, however, that does not by any means invalidate the science that we're talking about here. It means that we need to exercise our critical capacities, not blindly dismiss data and conclusions on the basis that the topic at hand involves politics.
-------------------- "What is in us that turns a deaf ear to the cries of human suffering?" "Belief is a beautiful armor But makes for the heaviest sword" - John Mayer Making the noise "penicillin" is no substitute for actually taking penicillin. "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." -Abraham Lincoln
| |||||||
|
Live to party,work to affordit. Registered: 10/03/04 Posts: 8,978 Loc: South Texas Last seen: 13 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
|
OMG you jumped off the bandwagon!
Good Job! Now are you going to continue to support the Democratic Party who are always pushing to create Tax Increases with this global warming hysteria..... The Climate Tax Bill was almost the largest tax increase in American history "The Climate Tax Bill would not have resulted in any “action” whatsoever. The bill, often touted as an "insurance policy" against global warming, would instead have been all economic pain for no climate gain. " "Just a few days after the embarrassing defeat of the Climate Bill, the Democrats were at it again. As the price of gas at the pump continued to climb, Democrats were proposing yet another energy tax as part of their “solution” to our energy challenges. The Democrats’ “no” energy bill would increase taxes by $17 billion for America’s oil and gas producers and increase government bureaucracy. Their bill does nothing to increase access to America’s extensive oil and natural gas reserves, does nothing for the promotion of nuclear energy, does nothing to increase refinery capacity, does nothing for electricity generation or transmission, and does nothing for the utilization of clean coal. They are attempting to ignore the basic concepts of supply and demand." http://epw.senate.gov/public/ind -------------------- America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure" We have "reckless fiscal policies" America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better Barack Obama
| |||||||
|
I watch Fox News ![]() Registered: 03/23/06 Posts: 2,946 |
| ||||||
|
Its amazing how many people around the world were suckered by this hoax. If you want to know what it might be like in couple years go to http://www.youtube.com and use the keywords Soylent Green and North Korea and look at those videos.
-------------------- http://www.theamericanright.com/ http://www.cnbc.com/id/15838446 http://www.climatedepot.com
| |||||||
|
Registered: 01/24/08 Posts: 5,784 Loc: The North Last seen: 10 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
isn't it funny how right wing nuts who don't believe in climate change dodge arguments and bitch about taxes nonstop so as to avoid considering the fact that they have no point.
First off I don't pretend to know what's really in this energy bill (unlike you guys) but energy tax reforms have worked successfully in Europe and have transformed some of their countries into environmental technology leaders. But I guess you Americans scoff at economic success anyway. More to the point madtown, what has convinced you there is no evidince to support anthropogenic climate change? Are you just realizing that Climate Change denial is too difficult to defend so your going for the sleeker new "It's not us though" aproach. We know there is a shit load of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere because of human intervention and we know that these gasses cause warming by deflecting infaread radiation in all directions and keeping it from leaving the earth. How is this not translating to anthropogenic climate change to you? -------------------- "Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?" "The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything." - Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now. Conquer's Club
| |||||||
|
Comrade Registered: 01/10/08 Posts: 8,993 Last seen: 1 year, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
.
-------------------- . Edited by AnonymousRabbit (05/19/22 01:10 AM)
| |||||||
|
Sun-Beams out of Cucumbers Registered: 03/06/03 Posts: 21,289 Loc: The Ocean of Notions Last seen: 9 days, 18 hours |
| ||||||
Quote: You have no idea what you're talking about vis a vis my views. I'm not right-wing and I've never been a denier of climate change. Anyone here could tell you that from reading my posts in the past. Until about a year ago, I was a vocal supporter of greenhouse gas control and an avid believer in man-made global warming. However, unlike many, I am able to change my views and don't have a dogmatic attachment to any one particular argument. To me, the evidence doesn't seem that strong. As I've said five times in this thread alone, there have been billions upon billions of years of climate change on Earth, with literally thousands of shifts between hot and cold. THOUSANDS, over BILLIONS of YEARS. Not little half a degree Fahrenheit rise, but swings of hundreds of degrees, with no input from man whatsoever. But now, the temperature rises less than a degree and it MUST BE BECAUSE OF PEOPLE? Why do you expect to live on the Earth in the only time in the planets history that the temperature remains static? Do you consider yourself that important? I'm not saying pollution is great. I live in the city, I hate smog. But is it not true that the amount of water vapor, also a potent greenhouse gas, that enters the atmosphere every day from natural process' is greater than that put out my man? I'm a geologist, and the amounts of nasty chemicals and steam put out by any volcanic eruption is staggering. And volcanoes erupt every single day. Again, I'm not claiming the Earth is not warming. It appears to me that it is. But I firmly believe this to be part of a natural cycle, as has ALWAYS BEEN THE CASE. Always. 100% of the time. Except for now? Pretty big exception. -------------------- After one comes, through contact with it's administrators, no longer to cherish greatly the law as a remedy in abuses, then the bottle becomes a sovereign means of direct action. If you cannot throw it at least you can always drink out of it. - Ernest Hemingway If it is life that you feel you are missing I can tell you where to find it. In the law courts, in business, in government. There is nothing occurring in the streets. Nothing but a dumbshow composed of the helpless and the impotent. -Cormac MacCarthy He who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God. - Aeschylus
| |||||||
|
Comrade Registered: 01/10/08 Posts: 8,993 Last seen: 1 year, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
.
-------------------- . Edited by AnonymousRabbit (05/19/22 01:10 AM)
| |||||||
|
Sun-Beams out of Cucumbers Registered: 03/06/03 Posts: 21,289 Loc: The Ocean of Notions Last seen: 9 days, 18 hours |
| ||||||
|
I'm on my way to work and don't have time to make a lengthy response.
But volcanic eruptions cooling the earth. That is a new one by me. And Milankovich Cycles are the only way the Earth has warmed in the past? That is a ridiculous oversimplification. The fact is, the reasons the Earth has warmed or cooled in the past are nowhere near known well. My professor, Dr. Margaret Frasier does quite a bit of work in this subject and would tell you the exact same thing. To pretend like it is a cut-and-dry simplicity of a regular cycle with no other inputs is crazy. -------------------- After one comes, through contact with it's administrators, no longer to cherish greatly the law as a remedy in abuses, then the bottle becomes a sovereign means of direct action. If you cannot throw it at least you can always drink out of it. - Ernest Hemingway If it is life that you feel you are missing I can tell you where to find it. In the law courts, in business, in government. There is nothing occurring in the streets. Nothing but a dumbshow composed of the helpless and the impotent. -Cormac MacCarthy He who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God. - Aeschylus
| |||||||
|
Error: divide byzero Registered: 04/27/01 Posts: 23,480 Loc: Caribbean Last seen: 3 months, 8 days |
| ||||||
|
> The fact is, the reasons the Earth has warmed or cooled in the past are nowhere near known well.
Completely agree with you on this! -------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
| |||||||
|
Live to party,work to affordit. Registered: 10/03/04 Posts: 8,978 Loc: South Texas Last seen: 13 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
Quote: My gut feeling is that it has something to do with the SUN. -------------------- America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure" We have "reckless fiscal policies" America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better Barack Obama
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
Last chance, folks. Next post in this thread dealing with the science of climate change as opposed to public policy on climate change sends this thread to Science and Technology.
Phred
| |||||||
![]() Registered: 06/23/07 Posts: 7,953 Last seen: 1 year, 11 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Could you explain this better? I am curious to know why our temperature is not 99.999% determined by the sun (I'm assuming there's a small amount of heat produced by the fissile decomposition of various things in the earth's core) I used to joke about polititans would tax the very air we could breathe if they could get away with it. http://www.carbontax.org/ And now, Joseph Gobbels would be proud. http://www.prisonplanet.com/arti Quote: You know what I find annoying about this? We've already got the technology and infastructure in place that we could move from oil to water, or electricity through so many ways. If people want, you just need to do a little research, procure some resources and you can make your own power. You can be independant if you want it. This is not about saving the planet, this is about taxing people even more and making a world government via stealth. And if a world government (like the European Union was for decades, it was brought in by stealth, and has been gradually taking control of all it's subject nations laws) is brought in by stealth, then it is not by the people, for the people. Tackling pollution is something I am very keen on, and I am pleased when I see innovations in dealing with actual pollutants like mercury, spent uranium, fluoride, and nitrate runoff. CO2 is not a pollutant. Carbon Dixoide, Oxygen, Water and Sunlight are the four basic elements of life on this planet. I love the spin on this article here: Quote: Another way of saying this is: Plants need less irrigation with higher CO2 levels, increasing yeilds in low water areas. --------------------
| |||||||
|
Comrade Registered: 01/10/08 Posts: 8,993 Last seen: 1 year, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
.
-------------------- . Edited by AnonymousRabbit (05/19/22 01:10 AM)
| |||||||
|
Comrade Registered: 01/10/08 Posts: 8,993 Last seen: 1 year, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
.
-------------------- . Edited by AnonymousRabbit (05/19/22 01:10 AM)
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
This thread was moved from Political Discussion.Reason: And away we go.
| |||||||
![]() Registered: 06/23/07 Posts: 7,953 Last seen: 1 year, 11 months |
| ||||||
|
When amoral, secretive societies want to fund a world government via carbon tax, the issue is no longer scientific, it's political.
But nevermind someone's inabillity to see that. It doesn't matter what forum it's disscussed in. And the talk is not important either. I didn't need to see the science (but it helped) to tell that this was a usurpation of the enviromental protection movement. I just read what the council on foriegn relations said about it. Now, the reason question people should ask is that our unelected leaders world wide have decided to tax us for things that produce CO2, which is hard to circumvent, but not impossible. The question people should be asking is how to make this tax fall flat on it's face and be unenforceable. People can do small scale power production, get a steam turbine and burn wood, or if you're feeling up to it, make a water cracker to drive a steam turbine. Can't put a tax on a system that has water as the end result, until they decide to tax water as well, as water vapour is the most significant greenhouse gas. --------------------
Edited by Visionary Tools (06/19/08 12:08 PM)
| |||||||
|
Comrade Registered: 01/10/08 Posts: 8,993 Last seen: 1 year, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
.
-------------------- . Edited by AnonymousRabbit (05/19/22 01:10 AM)
| |||||||
|
I watch Fox News ![]() Registered: 03/23/06 Posts: 2,946 |
| ||||||
|
-------------------- http://www.theamericanright.com/ http://www.cnbc.com/id/15838446 http://www.climatedepot.com
| |||||||
|
I watch Fox News ![]() Registered: 03/23/06 Posts: 2,946 |
| ||||||
|
August 31, 2007
Um... no: "Global warming – who pays and when?" - "The economics of climate change is driving what kind of pact nations may be willing to make." (The Christian Science Monitor) The only real question is which leader will have the courage and honesty to stand against the stampeding herd and admit we don't have a known climate catastrophe looming, don't really know what the global temperature is, what it should be or how to knowingly and predictably adjust it even if we decided good reason existed to attempt to do so? So, who will put their hand up? Who will lead mankind away from the abyss? "George Monbiot: zero emissions by 2030" - "Many people in the global warming movement have lost their minds. For example, we have seen that Al Gore and James Hansen predict 82-feet rise in the sea level. There's a huge competition between these folks. George Monbiot wants to promote his new book so he doesn't want to stay behind. Instead, he wants to remain the number 1 "moonbat" as people outside his movement call him. What can he do to achieve this non-trivial goal and beat his tough competition?" (The Reference Frame) "Deferred Forecasts Of Global Warming - An Example Of The Misuse of Science" - "A blatant example of masking an untested hypothesis as a scientific paper has been published in Science. The paper is “Improved Surface Temperature Prediction for the Coming Decade from a Global Climate Model” Doug M. Smith, Stephen Cusack, Andrew W. Colman, Chris K. Folland, Glen R. Harris, and James M. Murphy (10 August 2007) Science 317 (5839), 796. [DOI: 10.1126/science.1139540]." (Climate Science) http://www.junkscience.com/aug07 -------------------- http://www.theamericanright.com/ http://www.cnbc.com/id/15838446 http://www.climatedepot.com
| |||||||
|
Man of Science Registered: 03/15/05 Posts: 1,974 Loc: Hogtown |
| ||||||
|
The IPCC is probably the most visible (and rather obvious) propaganda outlet of this generation. Amongst all the fraudulent hockey-stick graphs, and irrational pre-supposition that CO2 actually DRIVES climate (heat flux), you find cute little appeals to emotion. A human-denigrating one, specifically. They force us to look upon ourselves as the consuming meat we are, and the damage brought about by such, and they exploit it. And why not? The same ones pimping the whole idea (fancy-pants artsies or politicians) MAKE A LIVING exciting the emotions of the masses. OH NOES!!! All those poor polar bears and our EVUL SUVs and EVUL AMERIKA SHEEPLES.
Bring us ever closer to a scientific dictatorship. The ever present Human Will to Order is at work here. Sustainability will need to be forced upon us. I don't buy the climate change crisis garbage. The climate has always been changing. There have been periods in earth's history when [CO2] was greater. Ice shelfs breaking and floating away could very well be signs of ice growth (mass increases, and surface supporting area remains mostly constant, hence, greater stress, hence breakage). All climate and weather has ONE driving force, which is the sun. Without heat flux, there can be no convection, so no winds, no ocean currents. [For some reason, the image won't show up, so here's the link.] To all you CO2 fear-mongers out there, have you bothered to look at the spectral absorption of CO2 compared to H2O? Water, specifically it's vapor-liquid equilibrium, forms the primary basis for our atmospheric conditions. There is roughly 8x10^22 moles of water on earth. There is roughly 6.8x10^16 moles of carbon dioxide. That's a difference of 6 orders of magnitude . See those carbon dioxide bands at about 2 um? That's not thermal radiation, thats just near IR, red-shifted out of visible. Water clearly dwarfs CO2 in absorption. all across the spectrum. Well, that's my big bad science. Take note it's not time-dependent either. Fuckin' here, and now. CO2 has fuck-all to do with climate. Even if you were to increase the concentration of CO2 tenfold, it's still insignificant in our little cuvette that is Earth, in that massive spectrometer that is the solar system. Also, it's nice to see Fred using his dictatorial powers once again. At first I was cross, as I consider the science inseparable from the politics: the issue of Climate Change is an exciting study in the effectiveness of propaganda. However, moving it to a new audience outside of the political forum opens it up to a new audience with new ideas, many of which are not actually their own, but ones which came from a screen. The location of the thread won't take away the political excitement. Edited by Minstrel (06/19/08 04:21 PM)
| |||||||
|
Error: divide byzero Registered: 04/27/01 Posts: 23,480 Loc: Caribbean Last seen: 3 months, 8 days |
| ||||||
Quote: 1) water falls out of the atmosphere as rain so it doesn't matter 2) CO2 stays in the atmosphere for a long time so it does matter -------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
| |||||||
|
Registered: 01/24/08 Posts: 5,784 Loc: The North Last seen: 10 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
alright I'm sick of this fucking tired water vapor argument. First off water vapor exists as clouds that though acting as a greenhouse gas by scattering infrared radiation in all directions also reflect the majority of the suns rays. Second off Water vapor only stays in the atmosphere for 7 to 9 days on average. Carbon stays in the atmosphere on an average of 5 years, this makes carbon 260 to 202 times longer lasting a greenhouse gas compared to water. Additionally this carbon is then pumped into the world's carbon cycle where it can be released for residual periods of time. Third of all water is responsible for warming, without any greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere like water the earth would be about -16 degrees (Celsius) on average instead of 16 degrees that it is now. It is merely an imbalance in the amount of these warming gasses in the atmosphere leading to an inordinate amount of warming.
For those of you who think the temperature causes the carbon Look at those carbon and temperature graphs again. You'll note that the heating period is relatively brief and quick where as the cooling period is long and drawn out. The reason for this is the greenhouse gasses effects on the atmosphere. As the temperature rises from ice ages it allows more carbon to rise into the atmosphere and water to remain in the atmosphere for longer periods of time. This makes the sharp increases you see in long therm climate graphs. The trigger for these events is universally accepted in the scientific community to be the larger Milankovich cycles that dictate the ellipticity of the earths orbit. Frankly you people are saying that the system is more complicated than we make it out to be and there aere numbers of forces at work. How come the two main people who are defending the reality of anthropogenic climate change here are offering real explanations and understanding of those systems and those in disbelief of it are citing American conservative news or even worse prison planet. Frankly if you think the world system is so fucking complicated explain to me a reality that defies the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Is there anything to disprove the logic that human beings have caused warming by increasing the amount of greenhouse gasses and that the amounts of these gasses is unprecedented in the earths history with many of them being generated in the last few decades. -------------------- "Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?" "The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything." - Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now. Conquer's Club
| |||||||
|
I watch Fox News ![]() Registered: 03/23/06 Posts: 2,946 |
| ||||||
|
You can see that the pro-global warming bullshitters ignore a lot of things.
Consensus Shattered As Major Scientific Study Says Global Warming Is Natural Attempts to reduce CO2 emissions "pointless" as sun is cited as climate change culprit Paul Joseph Watson Prison Planet Tuesday, December 11, 2007 The so-called scientific consensus that global warming is man-made has been shattered with the release of a major new study backed by three universities which concludes that climate change over the past thirty years is explained by natural factors and that attempts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions are irrelevant. Climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia report that temperature fluctuations over the past three decades are not consistent with greenhouse model predictions and more closely correlate with solar activity. The report dismisses attempts to reverse global warming by reducing carbon emissions as ineffective and pointless. Authored by Prof. David H. Douglass (Univ. of Rochester), Prof. John R. Christy (Univ. of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson (graduate student), and Prof. S. Fred Singer (Univ. of Virginia), the study appears in this month's International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society. “The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming," said lead author David H. Douglass. Co-author John Christy said: “Satellite data and independent balloon data agree that atmospheric warming trends do not exceed those of the surface. Greenhouse models, on the other hand, demand that atmospheric trend values be 2-3 times greater. We have good reason, therefore, to believe that current climate models greatly overestimate the effects of greenhouse gases. Satellite observations suggest that GH models ignore negative feedbacks, produced by clouds and by water vapor, that diminish the warming effects of carbon dioxide.” Co-author S. Fred Singer said: “The current warming trend is simply part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that has been seen in ice cores, deep-sea sediments, stalagmites, etc., and published in hundreds of papers in peer-reviewed journals. The mechanism for producing such cyclical climate changes is still under discussion; but they are most likely caused by variations in the solar wind and associated magnetic fields that affect the flux of cosmic rays incident on the earth’s atmosphere. In turn, such cosmic rays are believed to influence cloudiness and thereby control the amount of sunlight reaching the earth’s surface and thus the climate. Our research demonstrates that the ongoing rise of atmospheric CO2 has only a minor influence on climate change. We must conclude, therefore, that attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless – but very costly." The findings of the report help to explain why we are witnessing climate change in almost every corner of our solar system, from Mars to Pluto, to Jupiter and to the moons of Neptune - and clearly identify the sun as the main culprit and not CO2 emissions - which are being used as a pretext for control freaks to completely dominate every aspect of our lives. Man-made global warming advocates have often made their case by claiming that the scientific consensus is fully behind CO2 emissions as the main driver of climate change, when in fact the UN's own IPCC report was disputed by the very scientists that the UN claimed were behind it. In reality, a significant number of prominent experts dispute the global warming mantra, but many have been intimidated into silence and had their careers threatened simply for stating an opposing view. HAT TIP: Canadian Free Press http://www.prisonplanet.com/arti -------------------- http://www.theamericanright.com/ http://www.cnbc.com/id/15838446 http://www.climatedepot.com
| |||||||
|
Man of Science Registered: 03/15/05 Posts: 1,974 Loc: Hogtown |
| ||||||
|
The arguements I presented are completely independent of time. They are the cold hard facts of absorption. It doesn't matter how long one mole might linger, it is still in equilibrium. The turn-over rate of moles means NOTHING.
| |||||||
|
Man of Science Registered: 03/15/05 Posts: 1,974 Loc: Hogtown |
| ||||||
Quote: This is why YOU are not to be taken seriously. The system IS massive and incredibly complex, and CO2 is completely negligible. You are sick of the water vapor arguement because the dogma you've been fed is inadequate to rationalize around it. You've not only had the scientific propaganda imprinted into your mind, but with it, the idea that anyone who opposes you is in some way irrational. Your trust in the mainstream media is also frightening. Edited by Minstrel (06/19/08 07:02 PM)
| |||||||
|
I watch Fox News ![]() Registered: 03/23/06 Posts: 2,946 |
| ||||||
|
-------------------- http://www.theamericanright.com/ http://www.cnbc.com/id/15838446 http://www.climatedepot.com
| |||||||
|
Man of Science Registered: 03/15/05 Posts: 1,974 Loc: Hogtown |
| ||||||
Quote: 1. Problem: High prices give the mistaken conception that supply is low (oil doesn't work that way) 2. Reaction : Public is outraged and demands a quick fix, putting aside environmental/economic concerns 3. Solution: Use public money to drill more oil in places once thought taboo. Phony energy shortages have been around since the 60's. I wonder whats different this time? Edited by Minstrel (06/19/08 07:10 PM)
| |||||||
|
Comrade Registered: 01/10/08 Posts: 8,993 Last seen: 1 year, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
.
-------------------- . Edited by AnonymousRabbit (05/18/22 11:18 PM)
| |||||||
|
Error: divide byzero Registered: 04/27/01 Posts: 23,480 Loc: Caribbean Last seen: 3 months, 8 days |
| ||||||
|
> If water vapor is to blame for heating, then water vapor must be increasing.
If the world is heating, regardless of the cause, then water vapor must be increasing as warm air holds more water vapor than cool air. -------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
| |||||||
|
Experimenter Registered: 06/17/99 Posts: 24,166 Loc: my room Last seen: 7 days, 2 hours |
| ||||||
|
Just wanted to mention that warm air doesn't "hold" water vapor. Air is not a sponge. Air and water vapor simply coexist in the atmosphere.
You are right though that at a higher temperature the partial pressure of water is higher.
| |||||||
|
Registered: 01/24/08 Posts: 5,784 Loc: The North Last seen: 10 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
I just flipping told you above that higher temperatures increase the duration and quantity of water vapor as well as CO2
Anyway Ludite, when I Read your prison planet article I was impressed to see you cite such an intelligent and honest publication. here is the real paper in PDF file and you will note that it does not mention solar activity once but rather discusses the unreliability of climatic models. I hope you will consider this when I say that Prison planet is a bunch of dumb bullshitters. I fell for their crap for a bit but once I found that facts that they cite are hard to validate I never read them seriously again. Frankly anyway I don't know why you would cite prison planet anyway, I read news from infoshop.org but I would have to be real hard up to use them as a Cite because I prefer to back up my arguments with academic sources. Like how a journalist talking about an article of scientific importance is not the same perhaps reading that article since the writer applies their perspective to the data. Anyway solar flares (the main indicator of solar activity) have decreased in the last 30 years. I watched this in a Critique of the BBC program "The great global warming swindle" that accused the program of intentionally stopping the solar flare data at 1970 and fudging data in the early twenties however after 10 mins of searching I've given up on finding this data. To Minstrel: I used citations and scientific facts as well as theory to bolster my opinions. You on the other hand failed to explain how anything works in this "massive system" and furthermore you failed to actually attack any of my arguments with data at all. But after all your right with all your "knowledge" on the subject. I must be the one who is indoctrinated. -------------------- "Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?" "The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything." - Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now. Conquer's Club
| |||||||
|
※※※※※※ Registered: 12/22/02 Posts: 6,367 Loc: Europe Last seen: 1 year, 3 days |
| ||||||
Quote: True (most likely ), this once again shows the complexity of (global) climate and possible models.If this is true, a runaway reaction occurs; more water vapor->higher temp->more water vapour->..... (nuclear meltdown ).
| |||||||
|
Error: divide byzero Registered: 04/27/01 Posts: 23,480 Loc: Caribbean Last seen: 3 months, 8 days |
| ||||||
|
> Just wanted to mention that warm air doesn't "hold" water vapor. Air is not a sponge.
> this once again shows the complexity of (global) climate and possible models. You guys are killing all of my fun! j/k
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
| |||||||
![]() Registered: 06/23/07 Posts: 7,953 Last seen: 1 year, 11 months |
| ||||||
|
Water vapour is static? Doubtful, cloud formation and humidity levels are dictated by solar radiation.
When the sun heats up the oceans, CO2 is released, as well as more water vapour. When the sun doesn't heat up the oceans as much, the CO2 is drawn back into it. Now, let's assume we're able to eliminate the CO2 we produce from breathing, fires, travel, and construction. There's still the vast majority of CO2 that's produced from natural scources*. What then? Cap volcanoes, and make sure the oceans never heat up? This CO2 witchhunt is a fools errand, even more crazy than the war on drugs. All that will come of it is poverty and a technocratic stomping on rights which people have continiously fought and died for so the tyrants of their day wouldn't be able to take them away. *This is something that my research keeps getting mixed results on. Again it's not easy to factor due to the volatile nature of atmospheric composition worldwide based on temperature and evaporation rates. this suggests 5% CO2 is manmade This suggests 0.28%, or 5.53% including water vapour output This says that human CO2 production is 150X that from volcanic emissions. A good thing, otherwise we'd be like venus http://www.theclimatescam.com/ta --------------------
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 09/21/07 Posts: 51 Last seen: 15 years, 10 months |
| ||||||
|
im convinced it's a myth
| |||||||
|
Registered: 01/24/08 Posts: 5,784 Loc: The North Last seen: 10 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
did anyone read my post about water vapor
-------------------- "Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?" "The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything." - Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now. Conquer's Club
| |||||||
|
I watch Fox News ![]() Registered: 03/23/06 Posts: 2,946 |
| ||||||
|
Check out Senator Inhofe's web blog.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/ind It looks like some of those prisonplanet articles were copied from it or came from the same source as Inhofe's web blog. Looks like the UN has some scheme for ripping off rich nations using a carbon tax. -------------------- http://www.theamericanright.com/ http://www.cnbc.com/id/15838446 http://www.climatedepot.com
| |||||||
|
I watch Fox News ![]() Registered: 03/23/06 Posts: 2,946 |
| ||||||
|
Posted by Marc Morano – Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov - 9:14 PM ET
Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research Following the U.S. Senate's vote today on a global warming measure (see today's AP article: Senate Defeats Climate Change Measure,) it is an opportune time to examine the recent and quite remarkable momentum shift taking place in climate science. Many former believers in catastrophic man-made global warming have recently reversed themselves and are now climate skeptics. The names included below are just a sampling of the prominent scientists who have spoken out recently to oppose former Vice President Al Gore, the United Nations, and the media driven “consensus” on man-made global warming. The list below is just the tip of the iceberg. A more detailed and comprehensive sampling of scientists who have only recently spoken out against climate hysteria will be forthcoming in a soon to be released U.S. Senate report. Please stay tuned to this website, as this new government report is set to redefine the current climate debate. In the meantime, please review the list of scientists below and ask yourself why the media is missing one of the biggest stories in climate of 2007. Feel free to distribute the partial list of scientists who recently converted to skeptics to your local schools and universities. The voices of rank and file scientists opposing climate doomsayers can serve as a counter to the alarmism that children are being exposed to on a daily basis. (See Washington Post April 16, 2007 article about kids fearing of a “climactic Armageddon” ) The media's climate fear factor seemingly grows louder even as the latest science grows less and less alarming by the day. (See Der Spiegel May 7, 2007 article: Not the End of the World as We Know It ) It is also worth noting that the proponents of climate fears are increasingly attempting to suppress dissent by skeptics. (See UPI May 10, 2007 article: U.N. official says it's 'completely immoral' to doubt global warming fears ) Once Believers, Now Skeptics ( Link to pdf version ) Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has authored more than 100 scientific articles and written 11 books and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States, converted from climate alarmist to skeptic in 2006. Allegre, who was one of the first scientists to sound global warming fears 20 years ago, now says the cause of climate change is "unknown" and accused the “prophets of doom of global warming” of being motivated by money, noting that "the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!" “Glaciers’ chronicles or historical archives point to the fact that climate is a capricious phenomena. This fact is confirmed by mathematical meteorological theories. So, let us be cautious,” Allegre explained in a September 21, 2006 article in the French newspaper L'EXPRESS. The National Post in Canada also profiled Allegre on March 2, 2007, noting “Allegre has the highest environmental credentials. The author of early environmental books, he fought successful battles to protect the ozone layer from CFCs and public health from lead pollution.” Allegre now calls fears of a climate disaster "simplistic and obscuring the true dangers” mocks "the greenhouse-gas fanatics whose proclamations consist in denouncing man's role on the climate without doing anything about it except organizing conferences and preparing protocols that become dead letters." Allegre, a member of both the French and U.S. Academy of Sciences, had previously expressed concern about manmade global warming. "By burning fossil fuels, man enhanced the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which has raised the global mean temperature by half a degree in the last century," Allegre wrote 20 years ago. In addition, Allegre was one of 1500 scientists who signed a November 18, 1992 letter titled “World Scientists' Warning to Humanity” in which the scientists warned that global warming’s “potential risks are very great.” Geologist Bruno Wiskel of the University of Alberta recently reversed his view of man-made climate change and instead became a global warming skeptic. Wiskel was once such a big believer in man-made global warming that he set out to build a “Kyoto house” in honor of the UN sanctioned Kyoto Protocol which was signed in 1997. Wiskel wanted to prove that the Kyoto Protocol’s goals were achievable by people making small changes in their lives. But after further examining the science behind Kyoto, Wiskel reversed his scientific views completely and became such a strong skeptic, that he recently wrote a book titled “The Emperor's New Climate: Debunking the Myth of Global Warming.” A November 15, 2006 Edmonton Sun article explains Wiskel’s conversion while building his “Kyoto house”: “Instead, he said he realized global warming theory was full of holes and ‘red flags,’ and became convinced that humans are not responsible for rising temperatures.” Wiskel now says “the truth has to start somewhere.” Noting that the Earth has been warming for 18,000 years, Wiskel told the Canadian newspaper, “If this happened once and we were the cause of it, that would be cause for concern. But glaciers have been coming and going for billions of years." Wiskel also said that global warming has gone "from a science to a religion” and noted that research money is being funneled into promoting climate alarmism instead of funding areas he considers more worthy. "If you funnel money into things that can't be changed, the money is not going into the places that it is needed,” he said. Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel's top young award winning scientists, recanted his belief that manmade emissions were driving climate change. ""Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media. In fact, there is much more than meets the eye,” Shaviv said in February 2, 2007 Canadian National Post article. According to Shaviv, the C02 temperature link is only “incriminating circumstantial evidence.” "Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming" and "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist,” Shaviv noted pointing to the impact cosmic- rays have on the atmosphere. According to the National Post, Shaviv believes that even a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere by 2100 "will not dramatically increase the global temperature." “Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant,” Shaviv explained. Shaviv also wrote on August 18, 2006 that a colleague of his believed that “CO2 should have a large effect on climate” so “he set out to reconstruct the phanerozoic temperature. He wanted to find the CO2 signature in the data, but since there was none, he slowly had to change his views.” Shaviv believes there will be more scientists converting to man-made global warming skepticism as they discover the dearth of evidence. “I think this is common to many of the scientists who think like us (that is, that CO2 is a secondary climate driver). Each one of us was working in his or her own niche. While working there, each one of us realized that things just don't add up to support the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) picture. So many had to change their views,” he wrote. Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans, who did carbon accounting for the Australian Government, recently detailed his conversion to a skeptic. “I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change and forestry. When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause. I am now skeptical,” Evans wrote in an April 30, 2007 blog. “But after 2000 the evidence for carbon emissions gradually got weaker -- better temperature data for the last century, more detailed ice core data, then laboratory evidence that cosmic rays precipitate low clouds,” Evans wrote. “As Lord Keynes famously said, ‘When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?’” he added. Evans noted how he benefited from climate fears as a scientist. “And the political realm in turn fed money back into the scientific community. By the late 1990's, lots of jobs depended on the idea that carbon emissions caused global warming. Many of them were bureaucratic, but there were a lot of science jobs created too. I was on that gravy train, making a high wage in a science job that would not have existed if we didn't believe carbon emissions caused global warming. And so were lots of people around me; and there were international conferences full of such people. And we had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet! But starting in about 2000, the last three of the four pieces of evidence outlined above fell away or reversed,” Evans wrote. “The pre-2000 ice core data was the central evidence for believing that atmospheric carbon caused temperature increases. The new ice core data shows that past warmings were *not* initially caused by rises in atmospheric carbon, and says nothing about the strength of any amplification. This piece of evidence casts reasonable doubt that atmospheric carbon had any role in past warmings, while still allowing the possibility that it had a supporting role,” he added. “Unfortunately politics and science have become even more entangled. The science of global warming has become a partisan political issue, so positions become more entrenched. Politicians and the public prefer simple and less-nuanced messages. At the moment the political climate strongly supports carbon emissions as the cause of global warming, to the point of sometimes rubbishing or silencing critics,” he concluded. (Evans bio link ) Climate researcher Dr. Tad Murty, former Senior Research Scientist for Fisheries and Oceans in Canada, also reversed himself from believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. “I stated with a firm belief about global warming, until I started working on it myself,” Murty explained on August 17, 2006. “I switched to the other side in the early 1990's when Fisheries and Oceans Canada asked me to prepare a position paper and I started to look into the problem seriously,” Murty explained. Murty was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, "If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.” Botanist Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental campaigner, former lecturer at Durham University and host of a popular UK TV series on wildlife, recently converted into a skeptic after reviewing the science and now calls global warming fears "poppycock." According to a May 15, 2005 article in the UK Sunday Times, Bellamy said “global warming is largely a natural phenomenon. The world is wasting stupendous amounts of money on trying to fix something that can’t be fixed.” “The climate-change people have no proof for their claims. They have computer models which do not prove anything,” Bellamy added. Bellamy’s conversion on global warming did not come without a sacrifice as several environmental groups have ended their association with him because of his views on climate change. The severing of relations came despite Bellamy’s long activism for green campaigns. The UK Times reported Bellamy “won respect from hardline environmentalists with his campaigns to save Britain’s peat bogs and other endangered habitats. In Tasmania he was arrested when he tried to prevent loggers cutting down a rainforest.” Climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas of The University of Auckland, N.Z., also converted from a believer in man-made global warming to a skeptic. “At first I accepted that increases in human caused additions of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere would trigger changes in water vapor etc. and lead to dangerous ‘global warming,’ But with time and with the results of research, I formed the view that, although it makes for a good story, it is unlikely that the man-made changes are drivers of significant climate variation.” de Freitas wrote on August 17, 2006. “I accept there may be small changes. But I see the risk of anything serious to be minute,” he added. “One could reasonably argue that lack of evidence is not a good reason for complacency. But I believe the billions of dollars committed to GW research and lobbying for GW and for Kyoto treaties etc could be better spent on uncontroversial and very real environmental problems (such as air pollution, poor sanitation, provision of clean water and improved health services) that we know affect tens of millions of people,” de Freitas concluded. de Freitas was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, “Significant [scientific] advances have been made since the [Kyoto] protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases.” Meteorologist Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, was pivotal in promoting the coming ice age scare of the 1970’s ( See Time Magazine’s 1974 article “Another Ice Age” citing Bryson: & see Newsweek’s 1975 article “The Cooling World” citing Bryson) has now converted into a leading global warming skeptic. In February 8, 2007 Bryson dismissed what he terms "sky is falling" man-made global warming fears. Bryson, was on the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world. “Before there were enough people to make any difference at all, two million years ago, nobody was changing the climate, yet the climate was changing, okay?” Bryson told the May 2007 issue of Energy Cooperative News. “All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air,” Bryson said. “You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide,” he added. “We cannot say what part of that warming was due to mankind's addition of ‘greenhouse gases’ until we consider the other possible factors, such as aerosols. The aerosol content of the atmosphere was measured during the past century, but to my knowledge this data was never used. We can say that the question of anthropogenic modification of the climate is an important question -- too important to ignore. However, it has now become a media free-for-all and a political issue more than a scientific problem,” Bryson explained in 2005. Global warming author and economist Hans H.J. Labohm started out as a man-made global warming believer but he later switched his view after conducting climate research. Labohm wrote on August 19, 2006, “I started as a anthropogenic global warming believer, then I read the [UN’s IPCC] Summary for Policymakers and the research of prominent skeptics.” “After that, I changed my mind,” Labohn explained. Labohn co-authored the 2004 book “Man-Made Global Warming: Unraveling a Dogma,” with chemical engineer Dick Thoenes who was the former chairman of the Royal Netherlands Chemical Society. Labohm was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, “’Climate change is real’ is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural ‘noise.’” Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, of Carlton University in Ottawa converted from believer in C02 driving the climate change to a skeptic. “I taught my students that CO2 was the prime driver of climate change,” Patterson wrote on April 30, 2007. Patterson said his “conversion” happened following his research on “the nature of paleo-commercial fish populations in the NE Pacific.” “[My conversion from believer to climate skeptic] came about approximately 5-6 years ago when results began to come in from a major NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada) Strategic Project Grant where I was PI (principle investigator),” Patterson explained. “Over the course of about a year, I switched allegiances,” he wrote. “As the proxy results began to come in, we were astounded to find that paleoclimatic and paleoproductivity records were full of cycles that corresponded to various sun-spot cycles. About that time, [geochemist] Jan Veizer and others began to publish reasonable hypotheses as to how solar signals could be amplified and control climate,” Patterson noted. Patterson says his conversion “probably cost me a lot of grant money. However, as a scientist I go where the science takes me and not were activists want me to go.” Patterson now asserts that more and more scientists are converting to climate skeptics. "When I go to a scientific meeting, there's lots of opinion out there, there's lots of discussion (about climate change). I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority,” Patterson told the Winnipeg Sun on February 13, 2007. Patterson, who believes the sun is responsible for the recent warm up of the Earth, ridiculed the environmentalists and the media for not reporting the truth. "But if you listen to [Canadian environmental activist David] Suzuki and the media, it's like a tiger chasing its tail. They try to outdo each other and all the while proclaiming that the debate is over but it isn't -- come out to a scientific meeting sometime,” Patterson said. In a separate interview on April 26, 2007 with a Canadian newspaper, Patterson explained that the scientific proof favors skeptics. “I think the proof in the pudding, based on what (media and governments) are saying, (is) we're about three quarters of the way (to disaster) with the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere," he said. “The world should be heating up like crazy by now, and it's not. The temperatures match very closely with the solar cycles." ................ http://epw.senate.gov/public/ind -------------------- http://www.theamericanright.com/ http://www.cnbc.com/id/15838446 http://www.climatedepot.com
| |||||||
|
Error: divide byzero Registered: 04/27/01 Posts: 23,480 Loc: Caribbean Last seen: 3 months, 8 days |
| ||||||
|
> im convinced it's a myth
I'm not convinced that it is a myth, but then, I am not an expert in the field. What I am convinced of is that a lot of people that are not experts in the field think they know what is happening as if they were an expert climatologist... and these people are making a lot of money (Al Gore, etc) preaching their ignorance... and these people make it nearly impossible for somebody that isn't an expert in the field to filter the BS from the real science. I'm still pissed at the great Deity Gore, inventor of everything good, for telling me how to reduce my carbon footprint... it takes me nearly five years to produce as much CO2 as Al produces in a single month... yet I am the bad guy and he is the good guy.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
| |||||||
|
Registered: 01/24/08 Posts: 5,784 Loc: The North Last seen: 10 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
Look I'm not an all gore fan I've read books on climate change and more on the future of energy policy. I don't pretend to be an expert I am just telling you what I have read other experts say in the field. Humans have increased the CO2 in the atmosphere by on the order of half. According to wikipedia carbon dioxide is responsible for 9-25% of the greenhouse effect. Since the greenhouse effect is responsible for 36 degrees Celsius of warming we can take it that it means a anthropogenic shift from carbon added by man from the preindustrial to present of 1.44 degrees to 4 degrees.
-------------------- "Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?" "The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything." - Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now. Conquer's Club
| |||||||
|
Error: divide byzero Registered: 04/27/01 Posts: 23,480 Loc: Caribbean Last seen: 3 months, 8 days |
| ||||||
|
> What I am convinced of is that a lot of people that are not experts in the field think they know what is happening as if they were an expert climatologist...
> According to wikipedia carbon dioxide is responsible for ... Thank you for the example. -------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
| |||||||
|
I watch Fox News ![]() Registered: 03/23/06 Posts: 2,946 |
| ||||||
|
There is no man made global warming.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2 http://www.sciencedaily.com/rele -------------------- http://www.theamericanright.com/ http://www.cnbc.com/id/15838446 http://www.climatedepot.com
| |||||||
|
Registered: 01/24/08 Posts: 5,784 Loc: The North Last seen: 10 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
look luddite just by looking at the dates on those articles I know they are about the same report I linked too the PDF version of. That report was coming out about the inaccuracy of climate models specifically when it comes to altitude approximations of temperature. Frankly even the most complex models made by people are primitive approximations at best. You can link a hundred times to journalist's opinions of the same report but it is still just one report that doesn't really have much to do with what we are discussing. It sounds like you are just trying to carpet bomb me with googled links to headlines that you claim support your argument.
As for Seus I'd say that estimate fairly covers the range of conservative estimates to nonconservative. Clearly we are responsible for more than a third of the CO2 in the air at current. Do you dispute the idea that CO2 causes climate change? Ow what? I'm just citing it as the reality of anthropogenic climate change. We all know greenhouse gas related climate change exists or else this world would be froze over at -16 degrees Celsius. It's not flipping rocket science here People have changed the climate and temperature increases cause feedback effects that accelerate temperature increase. This should be clear by looking at Co-relating data on CO2 and Temperature. Sharp rises in both are the result of CO2/Water/Temperature Feedbacks that accelerate temperature increase and Temperature reductions are slow and gradual because feedback effects don't release this trapped energy out of the atmosphere they only keep it in. Anyway Seus you are bugging me about citing wikipedia Luddite has been throwing around this figure of greenhouse gasses being 98% water based on some old Geocities web page. -------------------- "Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?" "The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything." - Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now. Conquer's Club
| |||||||
|
I watch Fox News ![]() Registered: 03/23/06 Posts: 2,946 |
| ||||||
|
Scavenger lied
Quote: Its here: http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulat This one says 95%: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossil Also see http://www.astro.uu.se/~l/klipse http://www.astro.uu.se/~l/Hockey http://www.astro.uu.se/~l/noworr http://epw.senate.gov/public/ind http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/03/11/a-note-from-richard-lindzen-on-statistically-significant-warming/ http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/03/lindzen-vs-rahmstorf-exchange.html http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=138 http://junkscience.com/ http://junkscience.com/blog_js/ http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php http://eteam.ncpa.org/issues/?c=impacts-and-responses http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2008/06/10/dirty-us-media-secret-rest-world-rebels-against-climate-taxes -------------------- http://www.theamericanright.com/ http://www.cnbc.com/id/15838446 http://www.climatedepot.com Edited by Luddite (06/22/08 06:22 AM)
| |||||||
|
I watch Fox News ![]() Registered: 03/23/06 Posts: 2,946 |
| ||||||
Quote: http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulat -------------------- http://www.theamericanright.com/ http://www.cnbc.com/id/15838446 http://www.climatedepot.com
| |||||||
|
I watch Fox News ![]() Registered: 03/23/06 Posts: 2,946 |
| ||||||
|
links found here http://junkscience.com/blog_js/
http://carbon-sense.com/ http://climateaudit.org/ http://www.climatechangefraud.co http://climatedebatedaily.com/ http://www.climate-resistance.or http://climatesci.org/ Errors in IPCC climate science http://www.warwickhughes.com/blo http://www.globalwarminghoax.com http://agw-heretic.blogspot.com/ http://web.mac.com/sinfonia1/Glo http://icecap.us/ http://www.junkfoodscience.blogs http://www.skepticsglobalwarming http://solarscience.auditblogs.c http://www.wattsupwiththat.com/ http://wmbriggs.com/blog/categor -------------------- http://www.theamericanright.com/ http://www.cnbc.com/id/15838446 http://www.climatedepot.com
| |||||||
|
computerEnthusia Registered: 10/26/03 Posts: 6,446 Loc: TEXAS Last seen: 13 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
|
soon enough you will understand that it is hard to CHANGE the mind of people around here, no matter how many links or whatever you have that disproves their claim, no matter what it is. Its very strange for a site that should have more people with 'open' minds...lol.
I personally think that it is very arrogant for humans to believe that we are so big and important that we can effect the climate of earth solely. When I studied geology at our university, we also discussed this issue thoroughly, and all the Geologists and Geophysicists in our school came to the same result, that it could not be proven that we are changing the climate in any way. They also said that all the 'proof' that is out there is really just junk, people going into experiments with preconceived ideas of what is coming out of them really skews reliable results. From what I have read, I do not believe the hype that we are causing this global warming effect. It is part of the earth's natural cycle, and will continue to rise for a good while, until we hit another ice age. The earth has been doing this for billions of years, and it is what is happening now, and what will continue to happen long after all humans are dead (if the earth still exists at this point in time). peace
| |||||||
|
about tree fiddy Registered: 12/19/07 Posts: 8,298 Loc: Tacos |
| ||||||
|
"soon enough you will understand that it is hard to CHANGE the mind of people around here" -Not just here, this is true about people overall.
As for Al Gore, you guys shouldn't be so rough on him, after all he invented the internet. riiight! Definitely did not deserve the Nobel Peace Prize, the man is a fucking tard.
| |||||||
|
Registered: 01/24/08 Posts: 5,784 Loc: The North Last seen: 10 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
OK luddite I am not reading your links unless you do two things. #1 Offer some sort of explanation of how this relates to what you are arguing and explain what it means to the topic at hand (ie. prove you've read it, or at least skimmed it for the data to support your claim). And #2 Stop using stuff like Fox, Prison Planet and JunkScience as cites these are right wing thinktank's diatribes posing as journalism. This kind of citation hurts you only and when it's with regards to a scientific paper it wouldn't kill you to read that scientific paper instead of the junk journalism (that is if you really read the articles in the first place) that accompanies it's publication.
I know the figure of 95% is reliable for greenhouse gasses I was merely pointing it out to seus that it was not measurably worse than most of the data you cited. Are any of you guys disputing the fact that Water heats the earth because it is a triatomic molicule? That since carbon dioxide is as well it also must heat the earth? Or that Carbon dioxide lasts 206-260 times longer than water vapor in the atmosphere? Or that humans have caused over 30% of the carbon dioxide that exists in the atmosphere today? Because I can prove all of those things with simple science and all of them together do prove that humans are responsible for a proportion of climate change to date. -------------------- "Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?" "The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything." - Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now. Conquer's Club
| |||||||
|
Registered: 05/31/07 Posts: 17,582 Loc: Americas |
| ||||||
Quote: I don't think the biases of the author should impact the arguments being made, so I don't think you can write off something from prison planet off hand- though very likely something on their is utterly contrived and without support. Saying prison planet is right wing though is pretty silly. If anything its just completely insane. But you've correctly identified Luddite's behavior imo. He just carpet bombs (like you said) with a shitload of links. I've VERY rarely seen him contribute anything to a discussion. He simply stops in, bombs you with links, and leaves. You never know what the fuck his point is, what he contends the links show, and you certainly won't see him debate on topic. Pretty worthless in my opinion. I'd just ignore him till he starts debating on point with discernible arguments. I'd be shocked if anyone actually clicks his links more than once. Like anyone cares to read his 20 links to try to divine his point which he doesn't care to state...
| |||||||
|
Neuroscientist ![]() Registered: 11/12/07 Posts: 7,091 Loc: Australia Last seen: 14 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Why? -------------------- I know... that just the smallest part of the world belongs to me You know... I'm not a blind man but truth is the hardest thing to see
| |||||||
|
Registered: 01/24/08 Posts: 5,784 Loc: The North Last seen: 10 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
I write prison planet off wholesale because they exaggerate and lie a lot more often than not particularly when someone wants to cite what they say (since if it were true someone probibly already said it better). If prison planet is being cited it's usually one of three things: conspiracy theory, exaggeration of the facts, or bold faced lies. Actually I think that is their motto as well as it lists most of their journalistic standards. If you cited prison planet in a college or university course I hope your instructor would beat you.
But more to the point none of those organizations are intellect worthy sources. What I'm wondering is where's madtowntripper? Dude drags this topic up for no reason and just leaves, never to say much on it. Edited by ScavengerType (06/23/08 05:36 AM)
| |||||||
![]() Registered: 06/23/07 Posts: 7,953 Last seen: 1 year, 11 months |
| ||||||
|
Why is this? Because here in the UK people are aware this is just another excuse to raise taxes and will have fuck all to do about protecting the enviroment.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/enviro The majority of the British public is still not convinced that climate change is caused by humans - and many others believe scientists are exaggerating the problem, according to an exclusive poll for The Observer. The results have shocked campaigners who hoped that doubts would have been silenced by a report last year by more than 2,500 scientists for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which found a 90 per cent chance that humans were the main cause of climate change and warned that drastic action was needed to cut greenhouse gas emissions. The findings come just before the release of the government's long-awaited renewable energy strategy, which aims to cut the UK's greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent over the next 12 years. The poll, by Ipsos MORI, found widespread contradictions, with some people saying politicians were not doing enough to tackle the problem, even though they were cynical about government attempts to impose regulations or raise taxes. In a sign of the enormous task ahead for those pushing for drastic cuts to carbon emissions, many people said they did not want to restrict their lifestyles and only a small minority believe they need to make 'significant and radical' changes such as driving and flying less. 'It's disappointing and the government will be really worried,' said Jonathon Porritt, chairman of the government's Sustainable Development Commission. 'They [politicians] need the context in which they're developing new policies to be a lot stronger and more positive. Otherwise the potential for backlash and unpopularity is considerable.' There is growing concern that an economic depression and rising fuel and food prices are denting public interest in environmental issues. Some environmentalists blame the public's doubts on last year's Channel 4 documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, and on recent books, including one by Lord Lawson, the former Chancellor, that question the consensus on climate change. However Professor Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, said politicians and campaigners were to blame for over-simplifying the problem by only publicising evidence to support the case. 'Things that we do know - like humans do cause climate change - are being put in doubt,' said Lomborg. 'If you're saying, "We're not going to tell you the whole truth, but we're going to ask you to pay up a lot of money," people are going to be unsure.' In response to the poll's findings, the Department for the Environment issued a statement: 'The IPCC... concluded the scientific evidence for climate change is clear and it is down to human activities. It is already affecting people's lives - and the impact will be much greater if we don't act now.' Ipsos MORI polled 1,039 adults and found that six out of 10 agreed that 'many scientific experts still question if humans are contributing to climate change', and that four out of 10 'sometimes think climate change might not be as bad as people say'. In both cases, another 20 per cent were not convinced either way. Despite this, three quarters still professed to be concerned about climate change. Those most worried were more likely to have a degree, be in social classes A or B, have a higher income, said Phil Downing, Ipsos MORI's head of environmental research. 'People are broadly concerned, but not entirely convinced,' said Downing. 'Despite many attempts to broaden the environment movement, it doesn't seem to have become fully embedded as a mainstream concern,' he said. More than half of those polled did not have confidence in international or British political leaders to tackle climate change, but only just over a quarter think it's too late to stop it. Two thirds want the government to do more but nearly as many said they were cynical about government policies such as green taxes, which they see as 'stealth' taxes. About this article Close This article appeared in the Observer on Sunday June 22 2008 on p1 of the News section. It was last updated at 00:04 on June 22 2008. --------------------
| |||||||
![]() Registered: 06/23/07 Posts: 7,953 Last seen: 1 year, 11 months |
| ||||||
Quote: If they lied, they'd be sued for slander already. You don't like the content? Fine, doesn't give your lies any credence when you don't read the website. --------------------
| |||||||
|
Error: divide byzero Registered: 04/27/01 Posts: 23,480 Loc: Caribbean Last seen: 3 months, 8 days |
| ||||||
|
> If they lied, they'd be sued for slander already
Only if the lies harm somebodies reputation. Defamation cases in the US, unlike in most European countries, are very difficult to win. That pesky 1st Amendment that grants freedom of press makes it tough to win libel/slander cases.
| |||||||
![]() Registered: 06/23/07 Posts: 7,953 Last seen: 1 year, 11 months |
| ||||||
|
Alex Jones frequently talks about police brutality, about reports of soliders killing and raping children. He's talked numerous times and challenged people to prove him wrong that Dyncorp kidnaps kids, ships them to islands to be used as actual slave labour (being chained to sewing machines) as well as sex slaves.
You cannot say that stuff if it's not true without serious legal repercussions. --------------------
| |||||||
|
Registered: 01/24/08 Posts: 5,784 Loc: The North Last seen: 10 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
you can if nobody from dynicorp cares because your considered to be an internet tabloid. How come south park has never been sued? Because nobody cares (except Scientologists).
But anyway this is getting off topic. carbon taxes when done properly are intended to lead to or include cuts in personal income taxes. Many European countries have done this and it is basically the first thing you'll read anywhere when you actually look at the implementation of carbon tax policy. It works similar to what happened in Canada. A small eco-gas tax was introduced and it increases over time. So this year everyone gets a $100 energy rebate. I assume the plan is to do the same next year but with this conservative government who knows. But that's the general idea, more taxes = money back somewhere else. I like the idea of energy rebates for a unified carbon tax. It would tax a lot but it would give a lot back. Eventually people will make the smart choice and change things about their lives that are making these taxes bite them. So a net increase in taxes is unlikely without a bunch of completely incompetent morons in charge of environmental policy and even still it's not probable (75% of incompetent morons are republican). Anyway, rest assured the tax monster is not out to get you. Though to be honest take my advice, if you want environmental policy do not elect a conservative government. In Canada our fake Green conservative government has been giving corporations and industries that devastate our environment a free pass while they harass the general population with regulation. They have been particularly hard on rural residents since they are proportionally smaller voting blocs. -------------------- "Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?" "The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything." - Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now. Conquer's Club
| |||||||
|
Error: divide byzero Registered: 04/27/01 Posts: 23,480 Loc: Caribbean Last seen: 3 months, 8 days |
| ||||||
|
> You cannot say that stuff if it's not true without serious legal repercussions.
Maybe not in Europe, but in the US we can actually say quite a lot and not worry about repercussions. This is why I get so fucking angry and start using ass-munching vulgarities when talking about the cunt-drips at the FCC trying to claim that some speech can somehow be obscene. It is fine to urinate, but it is obscene to piss... what-the-fuck-ever. (RIP George, one of the greatest comedians of my lifetime.) Getting back on topic... > You cannot say that stuff if it's not true without serious legal repercussions. Yes, you can... at least in the US. It is very difficult to win libel/slander cases in the US because of the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution. Where I live it is even better... they plaintiff has to show actual monetary damages from the libel/slander. If they cannot show lost monies, the court will not hear the case. (I'm not in the US...) -------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
| |||||||
|
I watch Fox News ![]() Registered: 03/23/06 Posts: 2,946 |
| ||||||
Quote: You forgot to mention this http://www.sciencedaily.com/rele If you can't read the links yourself without being spoon fed, you proved what we already know, that you have poor reading skills and poor comprehension. -------------------- http://www.theamericanright.com/ http://www.cnbc.com/id/15838446 http://www.climatedepot.com Edited by Luddite (06/23/08 04:18 PM)
| |||||||
|
Registered: 01/24/08 Posts: 5,784 Loc: The North Last seen: 10 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
that's nice Luddite but we're not talking about climate model reliability and that is an article about the same paper that I linked to in PDF a page ago. In fact since you brought it up can you see the difference between an actual journalistic depiction of the paper and the one from prison planet? Quite a difference I'd say it almost sounds like they are talking about two different papers.
BTW ludd that article in no way substantiates your claim I don't know why you linked to it. Are you sure you know what a climate model is made to predict? Future climactic events and conditions. But to look at where we are at today and how we got here we use basic environmental physics. This is why we know anthropogenic climate change exists. -------------------- "Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?" "The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything." - Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now. Conquer's Club Edited by ScavengerType (06/24/08 05:23 AM)
| |||||||
|
I watch Fox News ![]() Registered: 03/23/06 Posts: 2,946 |
| ||||||
|
-------------------- http://www.theamericanright.com/ http://www.cnbc.com/id/15838446 http://www.climatedepot.com
| |||||||
|
Registered: 01/24/08 Posts: 5,784 Loc: The North Last seen: 10 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
not reading it without an explanation of why it's relevant.
-------------------- "Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?" "The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything." - Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now. Conquer's Club
| |||||||
| |||||||
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
![]() |
Scientist publishes "escape route" from global warming | 1,908 | 14 | 08/03/06 11:51 AM by Viveka | ||
![]() |
Global Warming??? ( |
3,237 | 24 | 02/01/05 09:35 PM by crazyman | ||
![]() |
More global warming rhetoric | 3,535 | 16 | 10/31/08 11:33 PM by lIllIIIllIlIIlIlIIllIllIIl | ||
![]() |
combatting global warming through extracting Co2 from the atmosphere | 2,910 | 17 | 01/05/07 08:44 AM by makaveli8x8 | ||
![]() |
Global Warming here in the north east.. | 1,254 | 15 | 01/08/07 08:17 AM by Vvellum | ||
![]() |
Global Warming May Have Caused Extinction | 490 | 0 | 01/20/05 06:13 PM by Worf | ||
![]() |
Global Warming Video | 700 | 11 | 05/02/06 11:14 AM by Viveka | ||
![]() |
Plants May Contribute Up to 1/3 of a Greenhouse Gas, Globally | 948 | 7 | 01/13/06 09:45 AM by Notell |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: trendal, automan, Northerner 6,295 topic views. 0 members, 0 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||





. I do see what you are getting at, and it's definitely true that there are a lot of politics involved in the climate change discussion, however, that does not by any means invalidate the science that we're talking about here. It means that we need to exercise our critical capacities, not blindly dismiss data and conclusions on the basis that the topic at hand involves politics.

This thread was moved from Political Discussion.
).
j/k


