Global Warming!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Page 3 of 7 First 12345 ... Last

  1. Quote Originally Posted by DT5 View Post
    most of the worlds climatologists agree that we have a detrimental effect on temperature...
    Really? According to who? From Red Hot Lies, "Professor Dennis Bray of Germany and Hans von Storch polled climate scientists to rate the statement, 'To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes?' … They received responses from 530 climate scientists in 27 countries, of whom 44 percent were either neutral or disagreed with the statement..."

    And according to a recently released report, article and original report are linked here, over 650 scientists, ranging from climatologists to astro physicists, disagree with or are skeptical of anthropogenic global warming.

    So where is this consensus? Unless of course by 'most scientists' you only mean the ones who agree with the theory, conveniently dismissing the many who don't. Which has basically been the approach to this consensus all along on this subject: except for everyone who disagrees, we all agree...

    and even if we didnt, error on the side of caution. i cant think of a single reason to NOT act, even if it isnt a true phenomenon.
    Then you are economically illiterate and should go back to school. All the 'actions' proposed will do nothing but cripple our productive capacity, consign massive portions of the third world and some of the first to abject and possibly perpetual poverty, and in the end do nothing to halt the process of warming while doing everything to make sure resources are misallocated and wasted throughout the global economy so they can't be used efficiently to fight the problem if it does exist.

    The base claim of the Do Something! crowd is that by giving the government mass control over energy resources and industry planning we can somehow achieve greater efficiency. Unfortunately we have ****loads of real world data to suggest that this approach, otherwise known as socialism, doesn't work even under normal circumstances and will work even worse under stressful ones. So if you want economic collapse and environmentalism of the type that lead to the poisoned triangle in the old USSR by all means keep backing the idea of Doing Something! at all costs.

    Fortunately the world is full of scientists and especially economists who aren't so thick, and who understand that resources allocated to one sector mean shortfalls in others; otherwise known as opportunity cost. Which is why the people with some sense on this issue say something along the lines of, "We need to know what specifically about it is true, and then we can go over the most cost effective ways of making a difference in the most critical areas." But a scattershot let's assume it's all true and through as much **** at the wall to see what works approach is sure to destroy a massive amount of wealth, and I for one don't feel like going back to living in a cave and possibly being eaten by some predator.

    the only things that would come from changing how we power the world, would all be positive.
    This is, to be blunt, complete bull****. The oportunity cost alone of using the governments of the world to reallocate the necessary resources to fight this issue, especially with the current 'at all costs' attitude, would cripple the world economy.

    the only people who would have a problem are christian nut jobs who love oil (for some wierd reason, i still cant figure out)
    I'm agnostic and I drive a Honda Fit, so once more, you are flat out wrong. Put bluntly, you should do more than listen to an Al Gore speech on the subject if you truly want to learn about it and what, if it's true and if anything, we can do about it.


  2. Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    I for one don't feel like going back to living in a cave and possibly being eaten by some predator.
    I've heard more rational statements from people coming down off an 8-ball.
    •   
       


  3. Quote Originally Posted by futurepilot View Post
    I've heard more rational statements from people coming down off an 8-ball.
    I've heard better arguments from a rusty Ford. Do you have anything but nonsense to add to the discussion?

    Fact: economic activity is, at base, the rearrangement of the material world into combinations more beneficial to mankind than raw resources. The only way for man to stop having an impact on the environment is to totally stop almost all economic activity. I dare to ask a question of one so intelligent, but you are of course aware that everything man does from the fuels we burn to provide energy for our current standard of living to the way we zone and use land will affect the environment, right? And the only way to truly minimize our impact on that environment is to stop the recombination of resources except at the most basic levels.

    More specifically, this means greenies want us to give up our very capital structure which is based on fossil fuel before we can utilize it to build and perfect more efficient/less impacting power sources such as solar and wind. As of right now our whole way of life is based largely on burning fossil fuel and we cannot advance beyond that capital structure while crippling it at the same time, or to put it another way, 'conserving' without first making gains in efficiency to offset the loss of resources. Which leads to higher prices, increased costs of living, and in extreme cases rationing of goods and services.

  4. Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    As of right now our whole way of life is based largely on burning fossil fuel and we cannot advance beyond that capital structure while crippling it at the same time, or to put it another way, 'conserving' without first making gains in efficiency to offset the loss of resources. Which leads to higher prices, increased costs of living, and in extreme cases rationing of goods and services.

    The 2 are not mutually exclusive. We can have both a fuel based economy, and a budget surplus. The issue is merely what the fuel is, and how we choose to structure our economy.

    See iceland, see denmark, see france, see greece. Little things like having roof mounted water heaters to take advantage of warm weather would drastically reduce costs/emissions.

    I dont think anyone is under the illusion that we can go back to the 1500's and live off the land entirely, but small steps can be made that add up to big change.

    It doesnt matter whether you believe in global warming, global cooling, or global free blowjobs and beer. The fact of the matter is, we are destroying our forrests and oceans at a rate that will affect us in our lifetime.

  5. Quote Originally Posted by futurepilot View Post
    The 2 are not mutually exclusive. We can have both a fuel based economy, and a budget surplus. The issue is merely what the fuel is, and how we choose to structure our economy.
    Incorrect. Errors are the following: how the economy is structured is not a choice. It is a spontaneous order that arises over time based on demand, individual trades, and capital accumulation. We also can not have a budget surplus so long as the government spends more than it takes in, unless of course it doesn't count debt and inflation in its book keeping. Also, the fuel of choice isn't arrived at randomly or through a committee, it is chosen on a marginal basis. And the plain fact of the matter is no fuel source existing right now can compete on a marginal basis with oil/gas and won't until people are forced to economize and voluntarily choose alternatives.

    See iceland, see denmark, see france, see greece. Little things like having roof mounted water heaters to take advantage of warm weather would drastically reduce costs/emissions.
    Some of which are practical, other measures of which are government sibsidized and thus require a loss be taken elsewhere. As a hypothetical example take the rooftop water heaters. They may be practical in some locations and not in others for various reasons. Mandating their use in an area for which they are unfit means people will end up losing wealth, not gaining it as they would in a mutually beneficial and agreed upon exhchange. The only true way to know what is beneficial for one person vs another in any given situation is to let them choose among various solutions, not to force government mandates down their throats. I'm not saying the options you see in other countries are not workable here, but which ones would serve whose interests best is not a choice to be made centrally by some bureacracy totally removed from the situation.

    I dont think anyone is under the illusion that we can go back to the 1500's and live off the land entirely, but small steps can be made that add up to big change.
    As a point of fact we never stopped living off the land, we just got a hell of a lot better at doing it through specialization and the division of labor. The economy you see around you is not something we inherret without any strings attach, it is due to years of advancement in specialization, division of labor, and capital accumulation over time.

    It doesnt matter whether you believe in global warming, global cooling, or global free blowjobs and beer. The fact of the matter is, we are destroying our forrests and oceans at a rate that will affect us in our lifetime.
    And even taken at face value we are not doing so gratuitously, we are doing so for a reason, or in other words the changes we are causing there are because of other beneficial changes we are getting elsewhere. Now let us trust the government to change things. Except, in point of fact, the government is the problem and is generally causing these issues. You don't see over logging in private forrests, you do see it in government controlled forrests where logging rights are leased but no one owns the forrest. You don't see dumping in private waterways but you do see it in government waterways and in the commons, the ocean, where no one is allowed to stake out property and demand payment for use or to exclude users.

    Put simply you only see overuse and dumping in areas where for various reasons, usually involving heavy government intervention, property rights have not been allowed to work and in fact have been actively stifled. This is where an economics education comes in handy, because resources that are owned and this rationally priced on the market do not become over used. The commons do become over used because they are perpetually under priced.
    •   
       


  6. Quote Originally Posted by JudoJosh View Post
    wow.. never heard that before.. I take it your a loose change fan?

    and as far as global warning I think presidential canidate sarah palin said it best "I'm not going to solely blame all of man's activities on changes in climate because the world's weather patterns are cyclical, and over history we have seen changes there. But it kinda doesn't matter at this point in the debate what caused it. The point is it's real; we need to do something about it."

    it doesnt matter what caused it as long as we get rid of it and pray it doesnt come back ...

    Nah Global Warming is bullsheet, at least in the sense its been portrayed recently, the world will continue to vary in temperature for all time and nothing that is done will affect it either way. It is what it is, literally. The world has been around for awhile and we havnt burned to death or frozen over yet that and there hasnt been factual scientific proof that the world will either go into a new ice age or just burn up.

  7. And we already have a fuel source better than solar or wind which is mostly a waste of time....Nuclear energy.

  8. Quote Originally Posted by Mjolnir View Post
    And we already have a fuel source better than solar or wind which is mostly a waste of time....Nuclear energy.
    Indeed, but if you look at the general greenie agenda they are mostly opposed to nuclear. They are, at base, opposed to human advancement and even existence in some cases. For them the world has inherrent value separate from what use it can be to us. Of course that they can only ponder that 'inherrent value' thanks to centuries if not millenia of economic advancement that has lead to us having so much leisure time usually escapes them.

    Now, to build more nuclear plants we'd need to... burn more oil and coal to get the energy and materials to build them. As they came online they could take over and enhance our energy infrastructure and available supply, eventually to the point where the fossil fuel gets allocated to serving a smaller and smaller, more increasingly specialized segment of the market. But that we have to continue to burn those fuels and indeed increase our use of them to make this possible is what gets greenies right where they live.

    People who are born into a world of market provided plenty often don't see or understand the lattice work of production pipelines that have been cultivated and directed over time to producing all this plenty they're used to. They think it's a matter nature or default that they have ipods and laptops and heated homes. It doesn't occur to them that artificially redirecting a significant portion of that capital, for any reason, seriously alters the structure of production and ends up with a lot of wasted resources and lost wealth on the part of the people.

  9. Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    It is a spontaneous order that arises over time based on demand, individual trades, and capital accumulation.

    They may be practical in some locations and not in others for various reasons.
    Our economy has been groomed by leaders/businessmen to become what it is, its not some sort of big bang theory.

    Of course a place like seattle would not be suitable for rooftop heaters, while it would be good for using rainwater purification centers too offset using mountain runoff. While nevada is more dependant on aquifers, but would be an ideal candidate for heaters.

    Basically, that second statement is correct, but thats not an arguement against trying these things, its merely a fact.

  10. Quote Originally Posted by futurepilot View Post
    Our economy has been groomed by leaders/businessmen to become what it is, its not some sort of big bang theory.
    Actually, it is, and the fact that you don't know that shows how much you have to learn about it. The economy is an example of a bottom up spontaneous order, similar to other systems such as language. That governments in collusion with some business leaders attempt to impose order from the top down doesn't change this. In fact, it is those attempts to interfere with and direct the market that usually end up leading to recessions and/or wars.

    Of course a place like seattle would not be suitable for rooftop heaters, while it would be good for using rainwater purification centers too offset using mountain runoff. While nevada is more dependant on aquifers, but would be an ideal candidate for heaters.
    The problem is if you leave the decision up to the government the result will be political, not marginal. Hence if a congressman from Seattle has a brother in law who makes such rooftop heaters, you can bet your ass that all of a sudden they'll become ideally suited for homes in Seattle.

    Basically, that second statement is correct, but thats not an arguement against trying these things, its merely a fact.
    It is an argument agains the government trying these things, because the government is not subject to a profit loss test. Hence anything they do gets paid for through tax funds, there is no chance to find out if it was really desired, works well, or works better than alternatives.

  11. Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    Indeed, but if you look at the general greenie agenda they are mostly opposed to nuclear. They are, at base, opposed to human advancement and even existence in some cases. For them the world has inherrent value separate from what use it can be to us. Of course that they can only ponder that 'inherrent value' thanks to centuries if not millenia of economic advancement that has lead to us having so much leisure time usually escapes them.

    Now, to build more nuclear plants we'd need to... burn more oil and coal to get the energy and materials to build them. As they came online they could take over and enhance our energy infrastructure and available supply, eventually to the point where the fossil fuel gets allocated to serving a smaller and smaller, more increasingly specialized segment of the market. But that we have to continue to burn those fuels and indeed increase our use of them to make this possible is what gets greenies right where they live.

    People who are born into a world of market provided plenty often don't see or understand the lattice work of production pipelines that have been cultivated and directed over time to producing all this plenty they're used to. They think it's a matter nature or default that they have ipods and laptops and heated homes. It doesn't occur to them that artificially redirecting a significant portion of that capital, for any reason, seriously alters the structure of production and ends up with a lot of wasted resources and lost wealth on the part of the people.
    I would like to subscribe to your newsletter, sir.

    It is a pleasure to see rational thought in action.
    Evolutionary Muse - Inspire to Evolve
    Flawless Skin Couture - We give you the tools to make you Flawless
  12. lutherblsstt
    lutherblsstt's Avatar

    Climate change deniers: failsafe tips on how to spot them

    Denialism blog has identified five tactics for spotting climate deniers that should set pseudo-science alarm bells ringing


    It's that time of year again, when the Heartland Institute gathers together climate naysayers http://www.heartland.org/events/NewY...newyork09.html to deny the reality of global climate change.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...change-deniers

    In a previous post on this blog, James Randerson recognised the similarity between creationists and climate change denialists and their tactics of sowing confusion and doubt about established science.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...stopher-booker

    But the similarities are not just with creationists. The same tactics are used by those who deny the link between HIV and Aids and those who subscribe to any number of bizarre conspiracy theories from 9/11 conspiracies to lizard people.

    At denialism blog we have identified five routine tactics that should set your pseudo-science alarm bells ringing. Spotting them doesn't guarantee an argument is incorrect – you can argue for true things badly – but when these are the arguments you hear, be on your guard.

    • First is the assertion of a conspiracy to suppress the truth. http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/20...conspiracy.php This conspiracy invariably fails to address or explain the data or observation but only generates more unexplained questions.

    But let us think about such conspiracies for a moment. Do they stand up to even a cursory evaluation? Is it really possible to make thousands of scientists, from over 100 countries, and every national academy of every country toe the same line, falsify data, and suppress this alleged dissent? I certainly didn't get the memo. At the heart of all denialism are these absurd conspiracy theories that require a superhuman level of control of individuals that simply defies reality.

    • The second tactic is selectivity, or cherry-picking the data http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/20..._picking_1.php . Creationists classically would quote scientists out of context to suggest they disagreed with evolution. Global warming denialists similarly engage in this tactic, harping on about long discredited theories and the medieval warming period ad nauseum. But these instances are too numerous and tedious to go into in depth.

    • Instead, let's talk about the third tactic, the use of fake experts http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/20...ke_experts.php , where both creationists and global warming denialists truly shine. Creationists have their Dissent from Darwin list of questionable provenance. Similarly, global warming denialist extraordinaire has his list of climate scientists who disagree with global warming. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...b-bd9faf4dcdb7

    But don't look too close http://www.desmogblog.com/400-promin...l-warming-bunk ! Lots of his big names are the same hacks who used to deny that cigarettes cause cancer for the tobacco companies, others are scientists who are wrongly included because they said something that was quoted out of context, others simply have no credibility as experts on climate like TV weathermen. But the desire of denialists to gain legitimacy by the numbers of scientists (or whoever they can find with letters after their name) used remains despite their contempt for the science they disagree with.

    • The fourth tactic – moving goalposts or impossible expectations http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/20...ons_and_mo.php – is the tendency to refuse to accept when denialists' challenges to the science have been addressed. Instead, they just come up with new challenges for you to prove before they say they'll believe the theory. Worse, they just repeat their challenges over and over again ad nauseum.

    This may be their most frustrating tactic because every time you think you've satisfied a challenge, they just invent a new one. The joke in evolutionary biology is that every time you find a transitional fossil all you do is create two new gaps on the fossil record, one on either side of the discovery. Similarly with global warming denialism, there is no end to the challenges that denialists claim they need to have satisfied before they'll come on board.

    It's important to recognise that you shouldn't play their game. They'll never be satisfied because they simply don't want to believe the science – for ideological reasons. In the US, global warming denialism usually stems from free-market fundamentalism that is terrified of regulation and any suggestion there should be control of business.

    • Finally, the fifth tactic is the catch-all of logical fallacies http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/20..._fallacies.php . You know you've heard them. Al Gore is fat! His house uses lots of energy! Evolutionary biologists are mean! God of the gaps, reasoning by analogy, ad hominem, you name it, these arguments, while emotionally appealing, have no impact on the validity of the science.

    It is important to filter information so that scientific discourse and debate can stay within the confines of rational argument and reason. Otherwise we get sidetracked and paralysed by denialists who are not honest brokers in a debate. Their goal isn't to promote science, or truth, or human knowledge, but to delay and deny.

    • Mark Hoofnagle has a PhD in physiology from the University of Virginia and contributes to denialism blog. http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/

  13. Climate Alarmist Nuts, one universally valid way to identify them: They're lying ****suckers who can't abide by their own standards.

    • First is the assertion of a conspiracy to suppress the truth. http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/20...conspiracy.php This conspiracy invariably fails to address or explain the data or observation but only generates more unexplained questions.
    No one ever claimed a 'conspiracy', just plain old activist assininity, plentifully demonstrated in the leaked emails from Hadley. But of course, if ExxonMobile gives an honorarium for someone's speech or paper, that proof positive nothing they say can be trusted because they're a part of the conspiracy of BIG OIL to destroy the planet. Oil executives presumably being immortals and so not having kids who would be harmed by such actions, are free to engage in such comic book planet destruction. However when leaked emails show a group of scientists routinely and actually conspiring to refuse legal FOIA requests, control peer review to keep skeptics out of publication even when they admit the skeptics have valid points, and systemic mention of temperature adjusments to make the data fit their trend... Well, that's 'science'.

    • The second tactic is selectivity, or cherry-picking the data http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/20..._picking_1.php . Creationists classically would quote scientists out of context to suggest they disagreed with evolution. Global warming denialists similarly engage in this tactic, harping on about long discredited theories and the medieval warming period ad nauseum. But these instances are too numerous and tedious to go into in depth.
    Laughable coming from climate scientists, the greatest Texas sharp shooters of the modern day.

    • Instead, let's talk about the third tactic, the use of fake experts http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/20...ke_experts.php
    No, instead let's talk about the Alarmist tactic of denigrating anyone who disagrees with them regardless of credentials. You know, "mere physicists" like Freeman Dyson and credentialed climatologists, meteorologists, statisticians, engineers, etc., all of whom are qualified and smart enough to comment of part or all of the body of research in question, but who lack the magic key to gaining acceptance to the temple of Qualified Reviewers by the likes of Gavin **** and lying frauds like Phil Jones and Michael Mann.

    • The fourth tactic – moving goalposts or impossible expectations http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/20...ons_and_mo.php
    Because expecting someone to track and preserve their data and release it for purposes of checking methods and results, especially when we're talking about publicly funded 'scientists' doing publicly funded research with data gathered from publicly funded stations, the results of which have massive public policy implications, well that's just too much to expect of them.

    One of the more wonderful lies told by Hadley and GISS ****tards is, "Oh, the data has been released..." Which makes one wonder why if all the data has been released, and after the **** hit the fan thanks to their own emails at Hadley, did Hadley agree to release all its data? 'Cause you see, it's either released or it isn't, and if it isn't you can't say it is, and if it is released already, you can't ****ing agree to release it all... again.

    is the tendency to refuse to accept when denialists' challenges to the science have been addressed.
    Addressed meaning setting up strawmen and taking them down so as to avoid the real questions they can't answer. Another lie, perfectly addressed here.

    • Finally, the fifth tactic is the catch-all of logical fallacies http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/20..._fallacies.php . You know you've heard them. Al Gore is fat! His house uses lots of energy! Evolutionary biologists are mean! God of the gaps, reasoning by analogy, ad hominem, you name it, these arguments, while emotionally appealing, have no impact on the validity of the science.
    Unfortunately for the ******* who wrote this statement, not only are Ad hominem statements not limited to any particular group, this is another strawman. It is perfectly legitimate to point out that Al Gore is not qualified to speak on any aspect of climate change, and that as a former politician who stood to gain power from legislation based on this research, and who now owns a company that's poised to make a bundle selling carbon offsets and other such scams, that he stands to profit from such research and the resulting policies.

    It also might be nice for these ****ing idiots and their activist buddies to go back to school for a bit and review a couple things, like: one, what peer review is; two, how it's supposed to work. It's not a Good housekeeping type seal of ultimate truth as any perusal of the NIH databases will tell you, nor is it supposed to be meddled with by the likes of Phil Jones to keep scilent his critics.

  14. Strong post to throw up when all the emails came out saying they falsified the data. Keep smoking that HOPE-IUM.
    The Historic PES Legend

  15. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgPUpIBWGp8"]YouTube- Jon Stewart Talks Climategate[/ame]
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  16. I think we should take Gore's Nobel Prize and give it to CDB.

  17. Oh sweet, sweet, sweet irony...

    Quote Originally Posted by Telegraph.co.uk
    This just in. The Institute for Scriptural Geology in Waco, Texas, today offered “unswerving support and fervent prayers” for the scientists caught up in Climategate. Professor Elmer Moody, director of the institute, told a press conference: “We know what it’s like to have the integrity of our research questioned by unbelievers, so our hearts go out to those good folks at the East Anglican University.

  18. HAHAHAAHAHAHA
  19. lutherblsstt
    lutherblsstt's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982 View Post
    Strong post to throw up when all the emails came out saying they falsified the data. Keep smoking that HOPE-IUM.
    Basically people are making a big deal about a few (like less than ten) off-hand comments out of tens of thousands of emails.

    For example, the one comment about using a "trick" to "hide" a decline. People key on those words but don't look beyond it to see that what is being talked about is a commonly known statistical issue that has been discussed publicly in the peer-reviewed literature since 1995.

    There is considerable evidence based on volumes of information that has been publicly available for well over a decade. So called skeptics cling to ever possible shred they can.

    A month and a half ago it was the idiotic and unsupportable assertion that we've been experiencing cooling for the last decade.

    This month it is cherry picking a sentence out of thousands of emails. As mentioned "hiding the decline" is a sloppy reference to a statistical issue that has been known since 94 or 95.
  20. lutherblsstt
    lutherblsstt's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    Climate Alarmist Nuts, one universally valid way to identify them: They're lying ****suckers who can't abide by their own standards.



    No one ever claimed a 'conspiracy', just plain old activist assininity, plentifully demonstrated in the leaked emails from Hadley. But of course, if ExxonMobile gives an honorarium for someone's speech or paper, that proof positive nothing they say can be trusted because they're a part of the conspiracy of BIG OIL to destroy the planet. Oil executives presumably being immortals and so not having kids who would be harmed by such actions, are free to engage in such comic book planet destruction. However when leaked emails show a group of scientists routinely and actually conspiring to refuse legal FOIA requests, control peer review to keep skeptics out of publication even when they admit the skeptics have valid points, and systemic mention of temperature adjusments to make the data fit their trend... Well, that's 'science'.



    Laughable coming from climate scientists, the greatest Texas sharp shooters of the modern day.



    No, instead let's talk about the Alarmist tactic of denigrating anyone who disagrees with them regardless of credentials. You know, "mere physicists" like Freeman Dyson and credentialed climatologists, meteorologists, statisticians, engineers, etc., all of whom are qualified and smart enough to comment of part or all of the body of research in question, but who lack the magic key to gaining acceptance to the temple of Qualified Reviewers by the likes of Gavin **** and lying frauds like Phil Jones and Michael Mann.



    Because expecting someone to track and preserve their data and release it for purposes of checking methods and results, especially when we're talking about publicly funded 'scientists' doing publicly funded research with data gathered from publicly funded stations, the results of which have massive public policy implications, well that's just too much to expect of them.

    One of the more wonderful lies told by Hadley and GISS ****tards is, "Oh, the data has been released..." Which makes one wonder why if all the data has been released, and after the **** hit the fan thanks to their own emails at Hadley, did Hadley agree to release all its data? 'Cause you see, it's either released or it isn't, and if it isn't you can't say it is, and if it is released already, you can't ****ing agree to release it all... again.



    Addressed meaning setting up strawmen and taking them down so as to avoid the real questions they can't answer. Another lie, perfectly addressed here.



    Unfortunately for the ******* who wrote this statement, not only are Ad hominem statements not limited to any particular group, this is another strawman. It is perfectly legitimate to point out that Al Gore is not qualified to speak on any aspect of climate change, and that as a former politician who stood to gain power from legislation based on this research, and who now owns a company that's poised to make a bundle selling carbon offsets and other such scams, that he stands to profit from such research and the resulting policies.

    It also might be nice for these ****ing idiots and their activist buddies to go back to school for a bit and review a couple things, like: one, what peer review is; two, how it's supposed to work. It's not a Good housekeeping type seal of ultimate truth as any perusal of the NIH databases will tell you, nor is it supposed to be meddled with by the likes of Phil Jones to keep scilent his critics.
    Co2 traps heat. The more CO2 in the atmosphere the more that atmosphere traps heat. We pump billions of CO2 intot he atmosphere every year by burning fossile fuels.

    Its really that simple - it doesnt matter if you find a million corrupt scientists these are basic scientific facts.

    I find the attempt to discredit really elementary basic science worrying.

    Its obvious people dont want to believe this so they are scraping the bottom of the barrel to find reasons to discredit climate scientists.

    For once I actually agree the governments of the world are doing the right thing and now everyone else is going on about conspiricies ! Its like 911 - in reverse.

    I give up.

  21. Quote Originally Posted by lutherblsstt View Post
    Basically people are making a big deal about a few (like less than ten) off-hand comments out of tens of thousands of emails.

    For example, the one comment about using a "trick" to "hide" a decline. People key on those words but don't look beyond it to see that what is being talked about is a commonly known statistical issue that has been discussed publicly in the peer-reviewed literature since 1995.

    There is considerable evidence based on volumes of information that has been publicly available for well over a decade. So called skeptics cling to ever possible shred they can.

    A month and a half ago it was the idiotic and unsupportable assertion that we've been experiencing cooling for the last decade.

    This month it is cherry picking a sentence out of thousands of emails. As mentioned "hiding the decline" is a sloppy reference to a statistical issue that has been known since 94 or 95.
    Time and time and time again scientist have come out saying it's a sham. In the 80s it was cooling, then global warming, now climate change. There is ONLY one common element here, and that is earth it self. Weather is cyclical and unpredictable. Now was the ice age's caused by human burning fossil fuels? Now, THAT science is seemingly ignored in the sensational BS that is put out today. Lets not forget the ocean floor is covered in Co2 eating plant life, and that takes up over 75% of the world.

    Climate change is just more buzz words as you put it. But they are words used to tax the world and make few the money. It's a way to industrialize environmentalism.
    The Historic PES Legend

  22. Quote Originally Posted by lutherblsstt View Post
    Co2 traps heat. The more CO2 in the atmosphere the more that atmosphere traps heat. We pump billions of CO2 intot he atmosphere every year by burning fossile fuels.
    Another way to know the Alarmist when you speak with him: playing a shell game with settled science when the discussion is over unsettled science.

    Yes, Luther. Very, very good. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. You may be surprised to realize NO ONE IS ****ING DISPUTING THAT. Most skeptics do not even dispute that the Earth has warmed and that CO2 likely played a role. Now, pay close attention. What IS being disputed are the catastrophic scenarios which are ENTIRELY based on completely ****ed computer models and the very, very shaky, totally unproven, and self contradictory ASSUMPTION that the Earth's climate is dominated by long term positive feedbacks. Specifically the charge is the climate was marvelously stable until we started burning fossil fuels. However, any jackass with even a passing knowledge of how feedback works knows that systems dominated by long term positive feedbacks tend toward volatility, NOT stability.

    But please, continue to set up strawmen and avoiding the actual issues so you can continue being a mouth piece for the ****suckers at GISS.

    Its really that simple - it doesnt matter if you find a million corrupt scientists these are basic scientific facts.
    a

    No, it's a basic scientific fact that you are trying to substitute for a complex unsettled analysis of the equillibrium achieved in a complex chaotic open ended system like the climate. Once more, if you had clue ****ing one about what you were talking about, you would know that a first order change in one or even a few such variables in such a system DOES NOT lead to long or even short term predictable results, even if you know how the feedbacks work and can model them accurately, which we don't and which we can't, as admitted in the very emails you call 'scraping the bottom of the barrel' below.

    I find the attempt to discredit really elementary basic science worrying.
    Then maybe you should actually READ the skeptics, such as the link I posted in my first response. Because, once more and read carefully, NO ONE IS DISPUTING THAT CO2 IS A GREENHOUSE GAS. No go run along and read some more.

    Its obvious people dont want to believe this so they are scraping the bottom of the barrel to find reasons to discredit climate scientists.
    If you think those emails are 'scraping the bottom of the barrel', then quite frankly you don't have a clue what you're talking about. That kind of crap coming out of a medical trial for a new drug would not only discredit the drug and the company/scientists studying it, it would likely result in serious criminal charges. Sloppy and quick might be good enough for climate 'science', in other fields of science these guys would have already been sent scuttling home with their balls in their hip pockets and an ass cheek in each hand. Jesus Christ, I have to maintain higher standards when we're measuring and validating the performance of my company's ****ing call center.

    If you're going to engage in this debate, here or elsewhere, I'd suggest you drop out of your usual remedial mode of cutting and pasting uncritically the positions of others. You're going to have your ass handed to you right quick if you do that and justifiably so.

  23. I'm 900+ feet above sea level, 300 miles south of the Canadian border. I love palm trees.


    Bring it on I say!

    Hang on a sac. they can't get the weather right 12 hrs before it's supposed to happen. Why trust 110 yrs of past records? Specially when the scientists that claim global warming is real were caught fudging the facts?
  24. lutherblsstt
    lutherblsstt's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    Climate Alarmist Nuts, one universally valid way to identify them: They're lying ****suckers who can't abide by their own standards.



    No one ever claimed a 'conspiracy', just plain old activist assininity, plentifully demonstrated in the leaked emails from Hadley. But of course, if ExxonMobile gives an honorarium for someone's speech or paper, that proof positive nothing they say can be trusted because they're a part of the conspiracy of BIG OIL to destroy the planet. Oil executives presumably being immortals and so not having kids who would be harmed by such actions, are free to engage in such comic book planet destruction. However when leaked emails show a group of scientists routinely and actually conspiring to refuse legal FOIA requests, control peer review to keep skeptics out of publication even when they admit the skeptics have valid points, and systemic mention of temperature adjusments to make the data fit their trend... Well, that's 'science'.



    Laughable coming from climate scientists, the greatest Texas sharp shooters of the modern day.



    No, instead let's talk about the Alarmist tactic of denigrating anyone who disagrees with them regardless of credentials. You know, "mere physicists" like Freeman Dyson and credentialed climatologists, meteorologists, statisticians, engineers, etc., all of whom are qualified and smart enough to comment of part or all of the body of research in question, but who lack the magic key to gaining acceptance to the temple of Qualified Reviewers by the likes of Gavin **** and lying frauds like Phil Jones and Michael Mann.



    Because expecting someone to track and preserve their data and release it for purposes of checking methods and results, especially when we're talking about publicly funded 'scientists' doing publicly funded research with data gathered from publicly funded stations, the results of which have massive public policy implications, well that's just too much to expect of them.

    One of the more wonderful lies told by Hadley and GISS ****tards is, "Oh, the data has been released..." Which makes one wonder why if all the data has been released, and after the **** hit the fan thanks to their own emails at Hadley, did Hadley agree to release all its data? 'Cause you see, it's either released or it isn't, and if it isn't you can't say it is, and if it is released already, you can't ****ing agree to release it all... again.



    Addressed meaning setting up strawmen and taking them down so as to avoid the real questions they can't answer. Another lie, perfectly addressed here.



    Unfortunately for the ******* who wrote this statement, not only are Ad hominem statements not limited to any particular group, this is another strawman. It is perfectly legitimate to point out that Al Gore is not qualified to speak on any aspect of climate change, and that as a former politician who stood to gain power from legislation based on this research, and who now owns a company that's poised to make a bundle selling carbon offsets and other such scams, that he stands to profit from such research and the resulting policies.

    It also might be nice for these ****ing idiots and their activist buddies to go back to school for a bit and review a couple things, like: one, what peer review is; two, how it's supposed to work. It's not a Good housekeeping type seal of ultimate truth as any perusal of the NIH databases will tell you, nor is it supposed to be meddled with by the likes of Phil Jones to keep scilent his critics.
    I'm well aware of what peer review is and how it is supposed to work.

    It is funny, the comment in one of the emails about redefining what peer review means has been taken as some egregious overstep when in reality it comes down to well known problems with one journal. In that case a horrible paper got pushed through a prestigious journal by a single editor ("skeptic").

    Within a month the paper had several rebuttals published in regards to it. It severely tarnished the reputation of the journal that such bad science got published and resulted in several editors resigning because they were embarrassed to be associated with the journal. Of course "skeptics" keep pointing to that article while ignoring that it has been dismissed as bad science.

    As for the FOIA stuff, they should have released the data to McIntyre. Most of the data was publicly available already but they didn't want to help him in particular.

    What would you would think if Jim Hansen made strongly declarative statements contradicting the general consensus of nuclear physicists.

    Put that in the context of Dyson and climate change.

    This quote from Dyson (found on Wikipedia) I think sums things up well:

    "My objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have."

    He's admitting ignorance, but yeah, great example.
  25. lutherblsstt
    lutherblsstt's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    Climate Alarmist Nuts, one universally valid way to identify them: They're lying ****suckers who can't abide by their own standards.



    No one ever claimed a 'conspiracy', just plain old activist assininity, plentifully demonstrated in the leaked emails from Hadley. But of course, if ExxonMobile gives an honorarium for someone's speech or paper, that proof positive nothing they say can be trusted because they're a part of the conspiracy of BIG OIL to destroy the planet. Oil executives presumably being immortals and so not having kids who would be harmed by such actions, are free to engage in such comic book planet destruction. However when leaked emails show a group of scientists routinely and actually conspiring to refuse legal FOIA requests, control peer review to keep skeptics out of publication even when they admit the skeptics have valid points, and systemic mention of temperature adjusments to make the data fit their trend... Well, that's 'science'.
    Firstly business is business. The oil industry is probably the richest on the planet and oil is currently the lifelblood of our society. Like any business when threatened by a competitior it moves to protect itself. It is a FACT that exxon Mobil paid scientists to support their case it even offered $10000 to anyone who would write papers which dispute the ~UNs climate study. He can read abouit it here :

    http://www.democrats.com/ExxonMobil-...6;10000-Bribes

    Is it really hard to believe that a huge business would play dirty to protect its own business interests or that it would be short sighted and not consider the consequences on their own grandchildren ? Humans behave like this all the time.

    For the record some oil giants are changing the way they operate and I admire them for this. Exxon are not one of them.






    No, instead let's talk about the Alarmist tactic of denigrating anyone who disagrees with them regardless of credentials. You know, "mere physicists" like Freeman Dyson and credentialed climatologists, meteorologists, statisticians, engineers, etc., all of whom are qualified and smart enough to comment of part or all of the body of research in question, but who lack the magic key to gaining acceptance to the temple of Qualified Reviewers by the likes of Gavin **** and lying frauds like Phil Jones and Michael Mann.
    Ok you are quoting a handfull of scientists - 99 % of the climate science world agree that anthropogenic climate change is a problem. If you are sincere then do some research - how many climate scientists (not physisists, molecular biologists etc - people who are focussed on climate science are the people we should listen to with regard to climate science) agree and how many dont.

    I think you will find the vbast majority agree AGW is a problem .
    In fact please give me a couple examples of people who have not been able to get their papers reviewed by established journals and we can discuss them.

    Some people may be turned down for review because ther papers are totally unscientific - some people are know to have received money form oil companies etc etc but Id like to see some specific examples rather than just generalised accusations.

    As for the scientist you mention - five minutes on google reveal :

    Freeman Dyson is a particle physisits not a climate scientist so his opinion is not relevant if it disagrees with the majority of climate scientists anymore than the opinion of a climate scientist that the theory of relativity is incorrect should be taken over the majority of physisists. Besides Dyson doesnt even disagree that human CO2 emmisions are a problem.
    Please feel free to name any other scientists you feel relevant to the argument and we can discuss them.



    Because expecting someone to track and preserve their data and release it for purposes of checking methods and results, especially when we're talking about publicly funded 'scientists' doing publicly funded research with data gathered from publicly funded stations, the results of which have massive public policy implications, well that's just too much to expect of them.

    It is perfectly legitimate to point out that Al Gore is not qualified to speak on any aspect of climate change, and that as a former politician who stood to gain power from legislation based on this research, and who now owns a company that's poised to make a bundle selling carbon offsets and other such scams, that he stands to profit from such research and the resulting policies.
    The only people who are qualified to talk on climate change are climate scientists which is why I say we should listen to what the majority of them are saying to us, stop trying to discredit them because we simply dont want to believe what they are saying, stop arguing and make the changes necessary before it is too late. People will make money out of anything they can - Id rather they made mopney out of clean renewable energy than dirty destructive fossil fuels.


    It also might be nice for these ****ing idiots and their activist buddies to go back to school for a bit and review a couple things, like: one, what peer review is; two, how it's supposed to work.
    For some reason people who disagree with AGW like to resort to insults rather than facts - no doubt as a result of frustration due to a lack of a factual or reasoned basis to their arguments. I know what a peer review is and the vast majority of peer reviewed papers on climate science show an overwhelming consensus amongst climate scientists that anthopogenic CO2 emmisions are causing the planet to warm.


    It's not a Good housekeeping type seal of ultimate truth as any perusal of the NIH databases will tell you, nor is it supposed to be meddled with by the likes of Phil Jones to keep scilent his critics.
    Scientists have had to put up with bribery to discredit their findings, they have found their names on petitions they did not sign presented to congress disputing AGW and a plethora of other dirty tricks to try and discredit them . It does not suprise me at all if they try and hide data from a people who will grasp at any straw possible to bundermine basic climate science and thus influence governments to stop takin the actions that we need to take.

    At the end of the day of course climate scientists may be wrong. Even they can say with only 90 percent probability what will happen if we dont reduce CO2 emmisiions.

    So you have a choice :

    if they are wrong and we listen to them we end up with cleaner fuel sources.

    If they are right and we ignore them it could result in a total disaster.

    Neither of us are climate scientists so I suggest we stop moaning and listen to the people that are.
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Replies: 22
    Last Post: 01-02-2007, 06:49 PM
  2. Global Warming
    By CHAPS in forum General Chat
    Replies: 80
    Last Post: 08-22-2006, 10:02 PM
  3. Global Warming Causes Stronger Hurricanests
    By QUICKRYDE in forum Politics
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: 10-10-2005, 09:49 AM
  4. Debate on the existance of Global Warming
    By kwyckemynd00 in forum Politics
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 09-06-2005, 07:49 PM
  5. Global Warming Countdown Catastrophe
    By darius in forum General Chat
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 01-25-2005, 03:28 AM
Log in
Log in