# +Global warming V2.0 and a poll+



## DANdeMAN (Oct 20, 2006)

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/017028.php

For those who haven't seen it yet....


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Even the BBC is embarrassed by that bit of tripe.

Durkin is the same guy that proposed a "docu" on the safety of silicon implants and had another program of his subject to complaints about distortion and misrepresentation . Against Nature/



> Climate change: An inconvenient truth... for C4
> This expert in oceanography quoted in last week's debunking of the Gore green theory says he was 'seriously misrepresented'
> 
> By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
> ...


Same APOC and Friends of Science and NRSP 



> Climate scientist 'duped to deny global warming'
> 
> 
> Ben Goldacre and David Adam
> ...


http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2031455,00.html

Do a little searching on the underpinnings.
http://community.channel4.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9250037634/m/9990023357

Dissent has a big role to play .....this is junk. Second time around on this anyway.

http://www.ehmac.ca/showthread.php?t=50554&highlight=global


----------



## DANdeMAN (Oct 20, 2006)

Yeah sure......

The poll is multiple choices if you wish....

Please no reply from the IPCC members.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

DANdeMAN said:


> Please no reply from the IPCC members.


There's 133 votes right there.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

What no killing Nascar? That would be my number 1, especially on Sundays.


----------



## DANdeMAN (Oct 20, 2006)

JumboJones said:


> What no killing Nascar? That would be my number 1, especially on Sundays.


Yes, I did omit a few as I didn't want to many choices. But I should have included "mass transport by donky" and "plowing the fields with bare hands"


----------



## ComputerIdiot (Jan 8, 2004)

DANdeMAN said:


> Yes, I did omit a few as I didn't want to many choices. But I should have included "mass transport by donky" and "plowing the fields with bare hands"


Now, now, let's not be extremist here ... I've got an old shovel and rake we could use ... bare hands aren't necessary ...


----------



## DANdeMAN (Oct 20, 2006)

Bump...this baby was on page 2


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

DANdeMAN said:


> Bump...this baby was on page 2


'Twas where it should have stayed.


----------



## DANdeMAN (Oct 20, 2006)

SINC said:


> 'Twas where it should have stayed.


Thanks for the boost....:clap:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

What SINC was really saying was: "Bump."


----------



## DANdeMAN (Oct 20, 2006)

More good stuff

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6031514559084805348&q=global+warming


----------



## DANdeMAN (Oct 20, 2006)

And more here

http://www.junkscience.com/


----------



## DANdeMAN (Oct 20, 2006)

Here to...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml


----------



## DANdeMAN (Oct 20, 2006)

Even more...

http://www.realclimate.org/


----------



## DANdeMAN (Oct 20, 2006)

*....*

Here is a 5 part document made by canadian scientists...clear and simple.

YouTube - Climate Catastrophe Cancelled Part 1 of 5

YouTube - Climate Catastrophe: Cancelled Part 2 of 5

YouTube - Climate Catastrophe Cancelled - PART 3/5

YouTube - Climate Catastrophe Cancelled - PART 4/5

YouTube - Climate Catastrophe Cancelled - PART 5/5


or go directly to the site (video section)

Friends of Science

ps; No I will not let go of it...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Historical average temperature for this date in St. Albert: +9.

Today's temperature at dawn -10 with wind chill of -28.

Current conditions: snow, wind and -5 with high winds. Wind chill -17.

Global warming my A$$.


----------



## DANdeMAN (Oct 20, 2006)

Everything about CO2 and its effect...:clap: 

CO2 Science


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> Historical average temperature for this date in St. Albert: +9.
> 
> Today's temperature at dawn -10 with wind chill of -28.
> 
> ...



global warming doesn't mean you should start planting lemon trees in your backyard
it means climate change on a global scale
90% of the world's glaciers are retreating
watch "too hot not to handle"
some very bright people saying some interesting things
dry places will get dryer
wet places to get wetter
canada to have longer growing season
more inclement weather and sever weather - wind, rains

you might want to ask katrina victims about "global warming" and see what they say

this ain't gonna be no picnic.....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Spec: Even the looniest of the GHGers don't equate Katrina with Global Warming--well, maybe the looniest.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

DANdeMAN said:


> And more here
> 
> http://www.junkscience.com/





> JunkScience.com is a website maintained by Steven J. Milloy, an adjunct scholar the Cato Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute - *right wing think tanks with long histories of denying environmental problems at the behest of the corporations which fund them. Milloy is also a columnist for FoxNews.com.
> *
> Milloy defines "junk science" as "bad science used by lawsuit-happy trial lawyers, the 'food police,' environmental Chicken Littles, power-drunk regulators, and unethical-to-dishonest scientists to fuel specious lawsuits, wacky social and political agendas, and the quest for personal fame and fortune." *He regularly attacks environmentalists and scientists who support environmentalism, claiming that dioxin, pesticides in foods, environmental lead, asbestos, secondhand tobacco smoke and global warming are all "scares" and "scams."*
> 
> ...


http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=JunkScience.com


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

DANdeMAN said:


> Here to...
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml





> This is a dazzling debunking of climate change science. It is also wildly wrong
> 
> Deniers are cock-a-hoop at an aristocrat's claims that global warming is a UN hoax. But the physics is bafflingly bad.
> 
> A scientific paper is one published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. This means it has been subject to scrutiny by other experts in the field. This doesn't suggest that it's the last word on the subject, but it does mean it is worth discussing. For newspapers such as the Sunday Telegraph the test seems to be much simpler. If they don't understand it, it must be science.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1947246,00.html



> Now Dr Stephan Harrison, Senior Lecturer in Physical Geography at the University of Exeter and Senior Research Associate at the Oxford University Centre for the Environment, examines the science behind Lord Monckton’s claims.
> Christopher Monckton’s recent article (Sunday Telegraph) is in many ways a remarkable polemic. He purports to show how scientists from a wide range of different disciplines, including atmospheric physics, atmospheric chemistry, climatology and palaeoclimatology, have misunderstood and misused the science of climate change, and he tries to debunk them all. Let it not be said that the man lacks ambition.
> Perhaps the most extraordinary and telling thing is that a paper like the Sunday Telegraph has to rely on Christopher Monckton, a journalist and former political advisor to Margaret Thatcher, to attack the science behind contemporary climate change. As far as I can tell he has no qualifications in the field of climate science and I doubt he was written a single scientific paper on the issue. The fact that nowadays the skeptics camp can hardly field a single informed scientist to support their views and have to rely on Monckton, surely says something about the weakness of their arguments.
> To go through his long article and the even longer set of supporting notes he provides and point out his mistakes would take far longer than I have here, and has been done comprehensively by other climate scientists on the Realclimate weblog, so I will just point out some of his worst errors.
> ...


http://www.turnuptheheat.org/?page_id=30



> Sometimes on Realclimate we discuss important scientific uncertainties, and sometimes we try and clarify some subtle point or context, but at other times, we have a little fun in pointing out some of the absurdities that occasionally pass for serious 'science' on the web and in the media. These pieces look scientific to the layperson (they have equations! references to 19th Century physicists!), but like cuckoo eggs in a nest, they are only designed to look real enough to fool onlookers and crowd out the real science. A cursory glance from anyone knowledgeable is usually enough to see that concepts are being mangled, logic is being thrown to the winds, and completetly unjustified conclusions are being drawn - but the tricks being used are sometimes a little subtle.
> 
> Two pieces that have recently drawn some attention fit this mould exactly. One by Christopher Monckton (a viscount, no less, with obviously too much time on his hands) which comes complete with supplematary 'calculations' using his own 'M' model of climate, and one on JunkScience.com ('What Watt is what'). Junk Science is a front end for Steve Milloy, long time tobacco, drug and oil industry lobbyist, and who has been a reliable source for these 'cuckoo science' pieces for years. Curiously enough, both pieces use some of the same sleight-of-hand to fool the unwary (coincidence?).
> 
> There you have it. The cuckoo has come in and displaced the whole field of climate science. Impressive, yes? Errrr.... not really


http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/cuckoo-science/


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

DANdeMAN said:


> or go directly to the site (video section)
> 
> Friends of Science
> 
> ps; No I will not let go of it...





> The Friends of Science Society (FoS) is a Canadian non-profit group based in Calgary, Alberta, that is "made up of active and retired engineers, earth scientists and other professionals, as well as many concerned Canadians, who believe the science behind the Kyoto Protocol is questionable." [1]
> 
> In an August 12, 2006, article The Globe and Mail revealed that the group had received significant funding via anonymous, indirect donations from the oil industry. [2] [3]
> 
> ...


http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Friends_of_Science


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

DANdeMAN said:


> Everything about CO2 and its effect...:clap:
> 
> CO2 Science





> ok, turns out co2science.org is a front org run by the crooked Idsos and funded by Exxon and Western Fuels (coal industry); among other BS they put out is the "greening earth" (i.e. global warming is GOOD for us!); sounds a lot like the "CO2 -- we call it life" BS from Myron Ebell!
> 
> http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Corrupt_Idsos.html
> 
> ...


Dan, do you have any other crap you'd like debunked?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Just ignore him, Dan. AS is one of those guys who feels guilty just for living.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

One has to "full of bunk" to successfully "debunk", do they not?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Why does it not surprise me that you are trying to defend wingnutters than have latched on to tripe? 
Your asinine comments show that once again you defend ridiculous pretensions, absurd statements and kooky claptrap.... 

Proper debate is fine but the mendacity of what Dan has posted should be pointed our for the garbage that it is.

MF, I've already quantified myself as a capitalist pig and bon vivant - and proud of it. Somehow, I don't see why there should be a dichotomy between than wanting to clear up the crap that Dan posted...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

The Ice Age Cometh
by Andrew Kenny
The Sunday Mail, 14 July 2002
A new ice age is due now, but you wont hear it from the green groups, who like to play on Western guilt about consumerism to make us believe in global warming.

THE Earth's climate is changing in a dramatic way, with immense danger for mankind and the natural systems that sustain it. This was the frightening message broadcast to us by environmentalists in the recent past. Here are some of their prophecies.

The facts have emerged, in recent years and months, from research into past ice ages. They imply that the threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind. (Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, in International Wildlife, July 1975)
The cooling has already killed thousands of people in poor nations... If it continues, and no strong measures are taken to deal with it, the cooling will cause world famine, world chaos, and probably world war, and this could all come about by the year 2000. (Lowe Ponte, The Cooling, 1976)

As recently as January 1994, the supreme authority on matters environmental, Time magazine, wrote:
The ice age cometh? Last week's big chill was a reminder that the Earth's climate can change at any time ... The last (ice age) ended 10,000 years ago; the next one— for there will be a next on—could start tens of thousands of years from now. Or tens of years. Or it may have already started.
The scare about global cooling was always the same: unprecedented low temperatures; the coldest weather recorded; unusual floods and storms; a rapid shift in the world's climate towards an icy apocalypse.
But now, the scare is about global warming. To convert from the first scare to the second, all you have to do is substitute "the coldest weather recorded" with "the warmest weather recorded". Replace the icicles hanging from oranges in California with melting glaciers on Mt Everest, and the shivering armadillos with sweltering polar bears. We were going to freeze but now we are going to fry.

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/iceage.htm


----------



## DANdeMAN (Oct 20, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> MF, I've already quantified myself as a capitalist pig and bon vivant - and proud of it. Somehow, I don't see why there should be a dichotomy between than wanting to clear up the crap that Dan posted...


Everytime you believe what the IPCC retard writes, you eat trash; no thanks, I will not eat from the same garbage can you do.

Where do the IPCC get there clean money from?

How many CO2 credits will you buy from Al Gore's company to compensate for you Capitalist pig and bon vivant ways?

I suppose that all these 17,200 scientist are on the EXXON payroll?

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm

This is why they signed.

ABSTRACT

A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th Century have produced no deleterious effects upon global weather, climate, or temperature. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth rates. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in minor greenhouse gases like CO2 are in error and do not conform to current experimental knowledge. 

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm


Continue on believing what the BOOB tube tels you....Look into my eyes. :greedy:

Don't waste you time with me, go out and be the pig you are, (your words not mine)


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

You have failed to address even one of the criticisms and you want to believe the word of lobbyists (read paid spinmasters). 

As for Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine:


> Case Study: The Oregon Petition
> 
> The Oregon Petition, sponsored by the OISM, was circulated in April 1998 in a bulk mailing to tens of thousands of U.S. scientists. In addition to the petition, the mailing included what appeared to be a reprint of a scientific paper. Authored by OISM's Arthur B. Robinson, Sallie L. Baliunas, Willie Soon, and Zachary W. Robinson, the paper was titled "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" and was printed in the same typeface and format as the official Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Also included was a reprint of a December 1997, Wall Street Journal editorial, "Science Has Spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth, by Arthur and Zachary Robinson. A cover note signed "Frederick Seitz/Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A./President Emeritus, Rockefeller University", may have given some persons the impression that Robinson's paper was an official publication of the academy's peer-reviewed journal. The blatant editorializing in the pseudopaper, however, was uncharacteristic of scientific papers.
> 
> ...


http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

And 


> The text of the petition (which was on a reply card) reads, in its entirety:[2]
> “	We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
> There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
> ”
> ...


Oregon Petition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Again, more BS....


----------



## DANdeMAN (Oct 20, 2006)

Look at what the IPCC is considering to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere....what a farce:clap:


----------



## DANdeMAN (Oct 20, 2006)

More from the "bouffons" :lmao:


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

What does sequestering carbon have to do with all of the disingenuous garbage you have posted?


----------



## DANdeMAN (Oct 20, 2006)

AS, debunck this : Here is what the IPCC 1990 said the temp was in the last 1000 years.










Here is the graph in 1998 IPCC after having irradicated the medieval warm period and the small ice age from history (artefacts of all sorts exist to conform this).


----------



## DANdeMAN (Oct 20, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> What does sequestering carbon have to do with all of the disingenuous garbage you have posted?


Garbage of a different type...IPCC garbage.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> AS, debunck this : Here is what the IPCC 1990 said the temp was in the last 1000 years.


so the earth goes thru "cycles" of warming and cooling and we might be in a natural warming cycle, BUT we're adding carbon dioxide and other pollutants that will accelerate and possibly deepen the process

it's like living in a polluted city and then taking up smoking

effects can be cumulative with disasterous results

the smoking may not kill ya and neither might the pollution, but the damage done to your lungs weakens your body and all of a sudden you get a coronary because your damaged lungs cannot process the polluted air


----------



## DANdeMAN (Oct 20, 2006)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> so the earth goes thru "cycles" of warming and cooling and we might be in a natural warming cycle, BUT we're adding carbon dioxide and other pollutants that will accelerate and possibly deepen the process
> 
> it's like living in a polluted city and then taking up smoking
> 
> ...


Please take the time and read those couple of paragraphs.

CO2 Science


----------



## imactheknife (Aug 7, 2003)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> so the earth goes thru "cycles" of warming and cooling and we might be in a natural warming cycle, BUT we're adding carbon dioxide and other pollutants that will accelerate and possibly deepen the process
> 
> it's like living in a polluted city and then taking up smoking
> 
> ...



well said:clap: and I don't think people are getting or seeing it at all...DUH

what does it take? extinction? people usually don't quit smoking until we have cancer or some related sickness from it. Why is it that humans can see the damage we are doing to the world and yet not give a SH*T...blows me away...we are an ignorant race...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

imactheknife said:


> what does it take? extinction? people usually don't quit smoking until we have cancer or some related sickness from it. Why is it that humans can see the damage we are doing to the world and yet not give a SH*T...blows me away...we are an ignorant race...


I think what it takes is some worthwhile proof. More people have died this year from automobile accidents, and hospital errors than any weather-related event. Let's get excited about real threats before we tilt at the imaginary.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Humans are like sheep, they follow the first guy who hollers "FIRE"!

Global warming is blown out of all proportion. Yes, weather is changing. Is it new? No, mother nature has been doing this for years. Can we stop it? Fat chance. Are scientists right? Doubtful.

Think about it. The local TV guy gets it wrong more than 50% of the time for a week ahead. We're now supposed to believe a 50 year forecast? Not likely.


----------



## imactheknife (Aug 7, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I think what it takes is some worthwhile proof. More people have died this year from automobile accidents, and hospital errors than any weather-related event. Let's get excited about real threats before we tilt at the imaginary.


I agree, but do you know most men die a lot younger than thier female couter parts? wonder why? most men hate Doctors and check-ups. They would rather fix a faucet or an knocking engine than worry about some werid feeling in thier butt or something. 2 years later that person finds out he has Cancer and he will die. If he had chosen to get it looked at the outcome might have been different.

This is the way most humans look at the world. We see things (symptoms) but no one is really taking it seriously and by all accounts it might be too late. Call me pessamistic but I think people have ignored signs for years. We keep polluting even when we know it is bad for our own health never mind the earths health.

ever wonder why the cancer rate is so high in Ontario...I personally know people who live along lake Ontario that have cancer at 18 years pf age. The pollution from Hamilton and all the sulfates and C02 from cars on the QEW and everything else gets enveloped along the escarpment....great breathing air my friend. Ever notice the smog and bad air days in Burlington, Hamilton, Toronto etc...why is that? is anyone doing anything about it? nope they keep complaining about smog and bad air but thats as far as it gets.

The cases of Asthma is getting higher and higher in Ontario for this very reason as well..


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

imactheknife said:


> We keep polluting even when we know it is bad for our own health never mind the earths health.


The earth is not a person, therefore has no "health".

It is simply going through a cycle that it has passed through thousands of times over millions of years. Nothing we do will change that. It might make scientists and environmentalists feel better, but it won't change the inevitable.


----------



## DANdeMAN (Oct 20, 2006)

imactheknife said:


> ...Why is it that humans can see the damage we are doing to the world and yet not give a SH*T...blows me away...we are an ignorant race...


You are right but its not a CO2 problem.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Dan you are quite daft aren't you?
Why to you insist on quoting CO2Science?
Basically a lobby group funded by ExxonMobil and Greening Earth Society (Western Fuels Association).....

*ALL of your "sources" have turned out to be lobby groups with ZERO scientific credibility, no PEER reviewed papers and ALL CRAP....*

Sinc, no one has said that the earth does not follow cycles - what is troubling at the moment is the amount of variations caused by human activity. 

Why is it that MF and SINC are influence more by blind ideological faith than facts? Could it be your religion trumps all reality?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> Why is it that MF and SINC are influence more by blind ideological faith than facts? Could it be your religion trumps all reality?


No religion involved at this end, how about you MF?

Just a very healthy skepticism of environmentalists, big business, governments and their lacky scientists. Someone is getting rich at the expense of spreading unnecessary fear, and that is just plain wrong.


----------



## DANdeMAN (Oct 20, 2006)

imactheknife said:


> ...The pollution from Hamilton and all the sulfates and C02 from ...


If CO2 was a pollutant, everyone working in green houses where the CO2 is most likekly near 1000ppm wich is believe to optimal for plant growth would be real sick or dead by now.

Your stament sound like "Warning this film contains sex and violence view discretion advised" as if sex and violence are in the same category, the same way you place sulfates and CO2 in the same bag.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> No religion involved at this end, how about you MF?
> 
> Just a very healthy skepticism of environmentalists, big business, governments and their lacky scientists. Someone is getting rich at the expense of spreading unnecessary fear, and that is just plain wrong.


Why is then that you believe every oil lobby group? Conservative think tank and lunatic fringe "scientist"?
If you really had some skepticism, you' be examining the sources of your "religion" as we'll has the overwhelming body of scientific evidence. Instead you wallow in the ground inhabited by soothsayers and unicorns....


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

DANdeMAN said:


> If CO2 was a pollutant, everyone working in green houses where the CO2 is most likekly near 1000ppm wich is believe to optimal for plant growth would be real sick or dead by now.


I suggest that you lock yourself in a room with 100% CO2 and tell me about the experience....




> Even if indoor air quality includes many components, among them
> temperature
> odor
> high or low levels of gases,
> ...


Carbon Dioxide Comfort Levels


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> Why is then that you believe every oil lobby group?


I don't. There you go with your personal paranoia again. Never once said anything like that. Get a grip.


----------



## DANdeMAN (Oct 20, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> Dan you are quite daft aren't you?
> Why to you insist on quoting CO2Science?
> [/SIZE]


Sometime when talking to cows or in your case a pig, you have to repeat many times.

It is allways easy for lower lifeforms such as pigs to continue eating there trash and dispence there liquid manure than to come up with valid arguments.

So pig, go play in your filth....


----------



## imactheknife (Aug 7, 2003)

DANdeMAN said:


> Sometime when talking to cows or in your case a pig, you have to repeat many times.
> 
> It is allways easy for lower lifeforms such as pigs to continue eating there trash and dispence there liquid manure than to come up with valid arguments.
> 
> So pig, go play in your filth....


okay okay, there is too much hot air blowing around in here...leave the insults and sick comments at the door....we are adults aren't we? and there are younger people on the boards...arguments are only good if cool heads are prevailing...goes for AS too...he likes to rub too sticks together to start a fire..likes lots of friction...


----------



## DANdeMAN (Oct 20, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> I suggest that you lock yourself in a room with 100% CO2 and tell me about the experience....


You are more of a simpleton than I tought you were...

I will do it if you put your nose in a ruminants a$$...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

DANdeMAN said:


> Sometime when talking to cows or in your case a pig, you have to repeat many times.
> 
> It is allways easy for lower lifeforms such as pigs to continue eating there trash and dispence there liquid manure than to come up with valid arguments.
> 
> So pig, go play in your filth....


There is only one here who has come up with filth, and it is you - as stated before not ONE of your sources have ANY validity, credibility or even PEER REVIEWED papers to back up any of the farcical claims. 

You placed your faith with lobby groups, spin masters and charlatans - and continue to delude yourself.

There is no debate amongst scientist about human influence on climate change. 



> The denial industry
> 
> 
> For years, a network of fake citizens' groups and bogus scientific bodies has been claiming that science of global warming is inconclusive. They set back action on climate change by a decade. But who funded them? Exxon's involvement is well known, but not the strange role of Big Tobacco. In the first of three extracts from his new book, George Monbiot tells a bizarre and shocking new story.
> ...


The denial industry | Climate change | Guardian Unlimited Environment


----------



## DANdeMAN (Oct 20, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> You placed your faith with lobby groups, spin masters and charlatans - and continue to delude yourself.


Faith as nothing to do with it....

So, where do the IPCC get there clean money from?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> I don't. There you go with your personal paranoia again. Never once said anything like that. Get a grip.


No SINC, you claim that some exaggerate the global warming scare (I agree) and at the same time seem to deny global warming .....
So which oil lobby groups to you believe?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Dan, again:
*ALL of your "sources" have turned out to be lobby groups with ZERO scientific credibility, no PEER reviewed papers and ALL CRAP....*


----------



## DANdeMAN (Oct 20, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> Dan, again:
> *ALL of your "sources" have turned out to be lobby groups with ZERO scientific credibility, no PEER reviewed papers and ALL CRAP....*


You need glasses....


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

As for the IPCC, I've never mentioned them. You have (I'm expecting some kind of polemical spin from you).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interg..._a_conservative_bias.2C_under-stating_dangers


> The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 by two United Nations organizations, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), to evaluate the risk of climate change brought on by humans, based mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature.[1] The Panel is open to all members of the WMO and UNEP.


But before you get all happy:


> Criticism of IPCC
> *History and studies suggesting a conservative bias, under-stating dangers*
> Other critics have pointed to conservative biases and influences over IPCC which suggest that IPCC, far from being prone to exaggerations, is actually more prone to underestimating dangers, under-stating risks, and reporting only the "lowest common denominator" findings which make it through the bureaucracy. These sort of problems are almost inevitable with such a large organisation representing such a large number of bodies with differing postitions. There is an enormous amount of careful negotiation on the content of the text. As noted by the History News Network,
> The Reagan administration wanted to forestall pronouncements by self-appointed committees of scientists, fearing they would be 'alarmist.' Conservatives promoted the IPCC’s clumsy structure, which consisted of representatives appointed by every government in the world and required to consult all the thousands of experts in repeated rounds of report-drafting in order to reach a consensus. Despite these impediments the IPCC has issued unequivocal statements on the urgent need to act.
> ...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Heck, if the IPCC says that they themselves are cautious why shouldn't we take them at their word? I've never heard the United Nations misrepresent itself or state a falsehood--not even tell lies to enrich themselves (with oil for food).


----------



## DANdeMAN (Oct 20, 2006)

How to destroy reputations of skeptics....

Hockey sticks and hatchets


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> No SINC, you claim that some exaggerate the global warming scare (I agree) and at the same time seem to deny global warming .....
> So which oil lobby groups to you believe?


None, and I don't totally deny global warming.

I simply object to the UN and its fear mongering scientists who paint such a bleak picture of impending disaster. Most of it is a natural cycle of the earth. It has happened before and it will again and there is nothing we can do to stop it.


----------



## DANdeMAN (Oct 20, 2006)

Here is something to lighten the mood... 

YouTube - GLOBE AL WARMING


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

The smear and counter-smear tactics don't lead to much. Read the scientific arguments and counter-arguments. The case is very strong when not just looking for a neat sounding counter (solidified belief that will take anything). It takes work but why would a scientific argument be easy?

As for smear-by-association, the weakness of that approach is obvious (any funding source can be smeared), but there are a couple wrinkles: 

Any vague association with a "side" (even a poorly assigned side) is used as an "argument", thus sidelining the real information; and,

In the case of direct funding for a given line of research, there is a difference. Politico-funding smears have some validity but when a company directly funds something and keeps getting the same results, remember that companies are there to make profits. Some take a longer-term view, or value public reputation more, but it comes down to the same thing. Why fund research that keeps coming out with the same answer? Because you value the answer itself, not the research.

Being in Ottawa (and technically being a lobbyist, and being in the energy industry) I should note, however, that the usual smear-by-association is all too easy for the simple-minded (see solidified belief point). For hire lobbyists (I don't happen to be one, but know a tiny bit about them) are hired for their access; they have multiple clients with a variety of views. They're a lot like lawyers in that work for one client does not mean much about the lawyer or, conversely, the client. To put it another way, they're hired to advise on how to frame a message and get that message to the right people.

Corcoran, for all his weak arguments on this topic (see point about science), got that one right. The internet can be really good for swapping info but it's also very easy to start with a belief and then interpret a large amount of keyword matches as evidence for the belief.

Hmmm...a little ranty. Oh well, my long weekend is almost over so why not?


----------



## DANdeMAN (Oct 20, 2006)

*From the national post*

More about the "hockey stick" and other "myths". Go and read all the series, real good.
Statistics needed



> While Wegman's advice -- to use trained statisticians in studies reliant on statistics -- may seem too obvious to need stating, the "science is settled" camp resists it. Mann's hockey-stick graph may be wrong, many experts now acknowledge, but they assert that he nevertheless came to the right conclusion.
> 
> To which Wegman, and doubtless others who want more rigourous science, shake their heads in disbelief. As Wegman summed it up to the energy and commerce committee in later testimony: "I am baffled by the claim that the incorrect method doesn't matter because the answer is correct anyway. Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science." With bad science, only true believers can assert that they nevertheless obtained the right answer.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

RealClimate » Myth vs. Fact Regarding the "Hockey Stick"


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

RealClimate must be real because the name says "real" climate. Simple.


----------



## DANdeMAN (Oct 20, 2006)

GLOBAL WARMING

And the cosmic ballet continues


----------



## DANdeMAN (Oct 20, 2006)

So Beej, your a "denier" of the medieval warm period and the little ice age?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

"On the other hand, in the context of the long-term reconstructions, the early 20th century appears to have been a relatively cold period while the mid 20th century was comparable in warmth, by most estimates, to peak Medieval warmth (i.e., the so-called "Medieval Warm Period"). It is not the average 20th century warmth, but the magnitude of warming during the 20th century, and the level of warmth observed during the past few decades, which appear to be anomalous in a long-term context."

"However, even for those reconstructions which suggest a colder "Little Ice Age" and greater variability in general in past centuries, such as that of Esper et al (2002), late 20th century hemispheric warmth is still found to be anomalous in the context of the reconstruction (see Cook et al, 2004)."

RealClimate » Little Ice Age ("LIA") Petit Ã‚ge Glaciaire

RealClimate » Medieval Warm Period ("MWP")

Same old stuff. The Great Hockey Stick Debate appears to have been the last pseudo-scientific gasp for the lonely religious sect that often refer to themselves as Rational Skeptics, thus sullying the good name of real rational skepticism.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Double.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Darn global warming:

Cold snap damages fruit crops across Southeast

COLUMBIA, South Carolina (AP) -- Frigid weekend weather caused frost that damaged crops across the Southeast, raising fears that peach, apple, blueberry, strawberry and wine grape crops were harmed.

Cold snap damages fruit crops across Southeast - CNN.com


----------



## DANdeMAN (Oct 20, 2006)

MWP & LIA :clap: 

CO2 Science


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> The Great Hockey Stick Debate appears to have been the last pseudo-scientific gasp for the lonely religious sect that often refer to themselves as Rational Skeptics, thus *sullying the good name of real rational skepticism.*


We'll Dan seems to like Iain Murray:


> Iain Murray is a frequent commentator on global warming and "sound science" who has repeatedly peddled various forms of discredited junk science, sometimes even after being informed that what he said was false.


http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Iain_Murray

and seems to like quoting CO2 Science


> The Center has links to the fossil fuel industry, both through personnel and funding.
> The Center works with the Greening Earth Society, a front group of the Western Fuels Association.
> 
> The Center is run by Keith E. Idso and Craig Idso, along with their father, Sherwood B. Idso. Both Idso brothers have been on the Western Fuels payroll at one time or another.


http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_the_Study_of_Carbon_Dioxide_and_Global_Change

Clap all you like.... Your "sources" have been (and continue to be) nothing more than garbage....



> "Suffice it to say for now, there is no compelling reason to believe there will necessarily be any global warming as a result of the activities of man, especially those activities that result in CO2 emissions to the atmosphere."
> Source: Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change website 4/04


Ignoring and bending facts to suit your beliefs instead of taking time to scrutinize the information you parrot... A real purveyor of Junk Science...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

The Edmonton Environment Canada weather office stated today that the first 10 days of April, 2007 in the Edmonton area is the fifth coldest on record in the past 50 years.

Darn global warming again, eh?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> Darn global warming:
> 
> Cold snap damages fruit crops across Southeast


Just like the one seasonable warm winter that is not proof of global warming, this is meaningless --- and you know better than this anecdotal game.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> The Edmonton Environment Canada weather office stated today that *the first 10 days* of April, 2007 in the Edmonton area is the fifth coldest on record in the past 50 years.
> 
> Darn global warming again, eh?


 Selective data again SINC?



> The winter of 2006-07 was 3 degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) above normal, matching a level set in the winter of 1986-87, with nearly all regions of the country experiencing above normal temperatures, Environment Canada said.


http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/ne...Z_01_N20395210_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-WEATHER-COL.XML



> Most of the country experienced temperatures at least 3 C above normal, while parts of B.C., the Yukon and the Northwest Territories saw the mercury hovering about 5 C higher than usual.
> 
> David Phillips, senior climatologist with Environment Canada, said the winter was a surprising one, hitting different parts of the country at different times and seeing huge temperature variations. He noted that Canadians experienced very different winters depending on where they live.


http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2007/03/20/winter-wrap.html



> *World weathers warmest winter on record*
> 
> Suzanne Ma
> CanWest News Service
> ...


http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=909393c4-ef1d-41d2-b23f-e2951794130f&k=14306


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Glad you linked to these other quotes of Phillips':



> "One of the major concerns about global warming is the flip-flop, the surprises, and we have clearly seen a lot of surprises," he said. "It is very inviting to link it to climate change. It's consistent with what one thinks, but it may be 10 or 15 years before we say for sure it was global warming."





> But Phillips said the blame can't be put solely on human beings.
> 
> "There's two sides of the debate. One that says it's our fault and the others that say 'no, this is nature.'" he said.


At least Phillips doesn''t have a stream of urine running down his leg every time there's a warm summer or winter.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> At least Phillips doesn''t have a stream of urine running down his leg every time there's a warm summer or winter.


But it gives all the gloom and doom predictors such a nice warm feeling, MF.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> But it gives all the gloom and doom predictors such a nice warm feeling, MF.


There is a difference between moderate comments by the majority scientists versus the highly amplified (and at times highly distorted) claims from a few skeptics...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Sorry, but when the majority of scientists tell me to jump in the lake I usually don't, especially when it concerns natural cycles of the earth that we can do nothing about.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Yet you are so ready to believe lobby groups and junk science pushers...

and have offered no proof of your contentions.... 

Sorry SINC, the natural cycle only accounts for a small proportion of what is happening. But continue with your beliefs, as irrational as they are....


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

To be honest, I don't believe either side. It's a natural, uncontrollable cycle. End of story.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> There is a difference between moderate comments by the majority scientists versus the highly amplified (and at times highly distorted) claims from a few skeptics...


Good, gentle, moderate scientists.

Bad, mean, loud skeptics.


OK, got it. Sheesh, what a presentation!


----------



## DANdeMAN (Oct 20, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> ....Click here for AS rebutal...


What did you say?

He's on my ignore list now...ahhh fresh CO2 filled air.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Good, gentle, moderate scientists.
> 
> Bad, mean, loud skeptics.
> 
> ...


You know, there is a difference between a scientists and what are basically spin machine deniers with zero credibility hired by lobby groups.... 
The subtlety may escape you but so far everyone of daffy Dan's "evidence" have been nothing more than hot air with ZERO peer reviewed papers and WORTHLESS.

These "skeptics" offer nothing but lies, distortions and outright fabrications. As often mentioned, there is room for debate, but there should be no tolerance for B.S.

The voice of a few deniers is amplifiers out of proportion to the overwhelming body of scientific evidence. Obfuscate all that you want, because it is the only thing that you seem capable of MF - you will still be wrong and you know it.... 

I'm surprised that you are not rallying against evolution - it would be apt - because no matter how much evidence is poured your way, you cling to "faith"...


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

SINC said:


> To be honest, I don't believe either side. It's a natural, uncontrollable cycle. End of story.


With so many scientists supporting global warming as a legitimate effect of human activities, Sinc, you should acknowledge that there is at least a small chance that the science is true, at least in part. If so, isn't it worthwhile to make changes in the way we live, just in case? 

I walk or take public transportation whenever possible, and combine trips when using the car. I recycle, use fluorescent light bulbs, shut the lights when I leave the room, turn down the heat and do washes in cold water. None of this has damaged me, but I am responsible only for myself, and I think we can all do a little something. 

For those concerned about the business consequences of "going green" CA Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has made the Newsweek cover because of his efforts to save energy throughout the state in accordance with the Kyoto Accord.

Article
CA expects to take the US lead in green technologies, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs. This doesn't sound so bad to me. 

Again, what's the harm to living like global warming is real, and doing something about it?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MissGulch said:


> With so many scientists supporting global warming as a legitimate effect of human activities, Sinc, you should acknowledge that there is at least a small chance that the science is true, at least in part. If so, isn't it worthwhile to make changes in the way we live, just in case?
> 
> I walk or take public transportation whenever possible, and combine trips when using the car. I recycle, use fluorescent light bulbs, shut the lights when I leave the room, turn down the heat and do washes in cold water. None of this has damaged me, but I am responsible only for myself, and I think we can all do a little something.


Of course we should. I do most of the same things you do for my contribution, but that alone will not change the natural cycles of the earth. Perhaps when they can correctly predict the weather a year in advance I might become a believer. Until then, I will keep referring to my copy of "The Old Farmer's Almanac" who have been 80% correct for 200 years now, a far better average than scientists and meteorologists.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

SINC said:


> Of course we should. I do most of the same things you do for my contribution, but that alone will not change the natural cycles of the earth. Perhaps when they can correctly predict the weather a year in advance I might become a believer. Until then, I will keep referring to my copy of "The Old Farmer's Almanac" who have been 80% correct for 200 years now, a far better average than scientists and meteorologists.


If you do all that stuff, your carbon footprint is probably relatively small. So whether you believe in global warming or not, you're not part of the problem. Good work.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Yet you are so ready to believe lobby groups and junk science pushers...
> 
> and have offered no proof of your contentions....


I think this is a basic misdiagnosis of the fake rational skeptics. The theory being that, in the absence of corporate spin, they would have a different opinion. 

Some fake skepticism goes much deeper and, while the outlet may look like rallying around junk science, they'd have the same conclusion with fewer links otherwise. There is something deeply wrong about a problem that requires global and government intervention to some. Such a new problem, despite similar problems existing in the past, is immediately held to an impossible standard of evidence (ie. absolute truth) or "goodness" or just pushed aside as requiring only a minimal response (just to shut people up). Plug some money into R&D and be done with it, for the GHG example.

Start with a basic ideal of personal freedom but then extend it to a "must" out of any reasonable context and you get the conclusion. You see the same sort of thing with certain ideologies on health care (e.g. two-tier = evil; all talk of otherwise is "credit card health care"), for example, and other public matters. 

Evidence does not matter as long as one little rejoinder can be summoned up or a source-smear can replace analysis. It's more about an underlying belief than any of the links du jour.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MissGulch said:


> If you do all that stuff, your carbon footprint is probably relatively small. So whether you believe in global warming or not, you're not part of the problem. Good work.


If you accept CO2 as a pollutant then everyone is a HUGE part of the problem, wih few exceptions. When controlling carbon dioxide fails to control the climate, they'll scream still louder and raise the bar on your li'l ol' carbon footprint.


----------



## DANdeMAN (Oct 20, 2006)

More hockey stick and one RealClimat goon...in some ways, mirrors the one here.



> Ahh yes, I have to chuckle evertime I see RC go for the big oil attack. Why do I chuckle? Because it is so deliciously hypocritcal of them. A simple whois reveals that RealClimate is registered to Environmental Media Services. A quick check of EMS reveals that they are a nonprofit front group for Fenton Communications. Who are they? Why they are a PR firm for environmentalist organizations. Rather amusing, eh? They attack skeptics for being funded by activists, when they themselves are funded by activists.. how delightful.


Climate Audit - by Steve McIntyre » SPM4 Preview: The Hockey Stick Lives


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Still playing hockey and not disproving theories. The standard pseudo-science approach. 

The PR firm smear, however, seemed fair given the other kind of proof-by-association approach that is common.

Aside: For your links, do you read the "sciency" part and evaluate it within the context of the theory of human-induced global warming? You don't seem to; but do seem to rely on the tone of writing to determine if you think you have zinger. 

Here's neat tone:
Your order of operations appears to be opinion then advocacy then (if you stumble upon any) information. Instead you could try information then analysis then opinion then advocacy and (it gets tricky here) continuing at the same time with the information then analysis then opinion because new information is always coming out that could change opinion and, therfore, advocacy. 

That may be a little like walking and chewing gum at the same time, but it's worth it, in my opinion. Don't worry if you trip a couple times at first.


----------



## DANdeMAN (Oct 20, 2006)

Beej said:


> Being in Ottawa (and technically being a lobbyist, and being in the energy industry) ...


What type of energy industry? and for whom do you lobby for?


----------



## DANdeMAN (Oct 20, 2006)

Some of you will like it, some of you won't. Little ice age.

YouTube - Sallie Baliunas - Extreme Weather


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I tried it for a couple minutes, but I'll have to rely on your judgement here: is "sciency" information provided beyond the basic prozac of things naturally changing and such arguments? Yes, climate naturally changes. That still does not get at the issue. Forest fires happen naturally, but people can also cause them.

I'll watch/skim through the whole thing if you say it actually has relevant information (not just, "things change" and such). And, maybe, as a wonderful experiment, you can try to research the opposite point of view on items you have slapped up here (it is helpful to challenge oneself and not just rely and sycophantic sites) and then comment on where you think the other points of view are mistaken or that there is a gap in understanding that is materially relevant to the theory of human-induced climate change.


----------



## DANdeMAN (Oct 20, 2006)

It does not matter how I ended up where I am now.

I started this thread for one simple reason : To post links to films and site that shows that there is no looming disaster, that's it.... I'm in no way a scientist capable of explaning what an Isotope in a tree ring does!

And now "people" are trying to descredit me!? Now that is funny!  

Ther are others like me, who used to be in the midle leaning towards doom and bombarded 24/7 by this propaganda. This is a chance for them to take a look at what other scentists are saying about the subjet. If they see, they see, if they don't, they don't. What hangs in the balance is freedom and our money in exchage for missliding data. No thanks!

You believe what the IPCC preaches? Fine, it does not matter to me.

Some think EXXON is bad, wait till Gore gets is way.

So, will you answer my previous question?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

04/11/07

"ConocoPhillips Supports Mandatory National Framework To Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions"

Conoco just joined: United States Climate Action Partnership

"Each year we delay action to control emissions increases the risk of unavoidable consequences that could necessitate even steeper reductions in the future, at potentially greater economic cost and social disruption. Action sooner rather than later preserves valuable response options, narrows the uncertainties associated with changes to the climate, and should lower the costs of mitigation and adaptation."

"USCAP agrees that the world must preserve the possibility of stabilizing the climate at a level that would avert the most dangerous impacts of climate change. This is between 450-550 parts per million of CO2."

From their plan:
"Furthermore, Congress should specify an emission target zone aimed at reducing emissions by 60% to 80% from current levels by 2050."


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Beej: This doesn't imply acceptance at all. It implies a pre-emptive response to a population that is crapping its pants in self-stoked fear, and a government willing to do almost anything to mollify them.

If you were surrounded by primitives who felt that they could control the weather by throwing sacrifices into a fire, you wouldn't start arguing with them--you'd hand them something to burn so they didn't burn you.


----------



## DANdeMAN (Oct 20, 2006)

MWP & LIA, where did they go?


----------



## DANdeMAN (Oct 20, 2006)

From NASA this time...

NASA - Marshes Tell Story of Medieval Drought, Little Ice Age, and European Settlers near New York City


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

Beej, think corn. Google ConocoPhillips and corn ethanol. Read up on ethanol production.


Do some research into what is happening with corn and food futures. Find out who the big players are.

Be afraid. We are being scammed.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Actually, there are lots of opportunities (current biofuels should be a transition tech due to their marginal benefits) and lots to be made, but CP is still heavily dominated by fossil fuels. That's the problem with traditional proof-by-smear arguments. 

But, without a doubt, they're looking after their bottom line. The change in attitude comes when a company final decides that their best feasible future economy (decades out) looks nothing like the current one for their area of business. Then, for their bottom line, public tactics change because they no longer consider struggling for the status quo as a relevant activity.

It is not real until the deeper strategy changes (could just be PR, not a real signal to shift). As for the ethanol "scam", the case is quite overstated ala the pendulum of public discourse. Ethanol used to get huge and blind support but, when its scale finally emerged (economies of scale) some enviros turned on it because, at the extreme end, it was never about GHGs to them, but about approaching some fake state of purity by local existence. Some are even turning on wind generation. 

In the end, as with many things, big does not equal bad, small is not inherently beautiful and the extremists (doomsayers and faith-based deniers) are only relevant because they say more interesting things. "If it bleeds it leads", and extremists are perpetually crying blood.


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

Beej, even Fidel Castro is speaking out. Chavez too. The alarm bells are going off and rightly so. I too believed in bio-fuels... or I did.

All I ask is for folks to keep an open mind. Start digging to find out what is truly happening.

Cripes, even China is saying "whoa"... wait a minute.... maybe the solution is worse than first expected.

Something is very wrong when folks are starving so people can fill up their car.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Listening to Castro and Chavez? Bad idea. Especially Chavez, who is burning through so much money that he needs $50+ oil to keep afloat. Maybe even $60, longer term given PDVSA's needs.

Biofuels are only, and have only ever been, part of the solution. Furthermore, the current "commercial" technologies are just a subset of that part. Unfortunately, when multi-billion dollar handouts to farmers for nothing are acceptable, the ability to add terms like "sustainable energy" and "value-added" to the usual handouts is catnip to politicians. Ok to shovel money at them, but not if it is for ethanol? If nothing else, it's more efficient vote buying.

Setting aside just using a carbon tax like they should, bio-fuels should have been pursued in steps, with each new set of plants (maybe one at a time for Canada) would only be helped if it was a significant step forward from the previous. There's lots of potential there (not just food crops), GMO should be a big part of it, but the free for all is political catnip.

As for people starving, that's a gross over-statement. We were not giving them money from driving less anyway. A question to ask yourself is why anyone would assume that various energy system's pricing should be independent? After all, food is energy for us and takes solar and other fuels (generally past solar energy) to fertilize and produce. Them being unconnected looks more like a temporary, and government warped, phase.


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

Little do you know about Castro and Cuba. If only we conducted ourselves like that impoverished country does. Cuba is one of, if not THE "greenest" country on the planet. Castro is an environmental zealot. Cuba leads the world on every environmental platform you can name... from sustainable, true organic farming techniques to conservation issues. No other country recycles like they do.

If Castro is afraid, I'm afraid.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

That seems like a well worded joke. If not, get a grip. If so, nicely done.

Aside from the fact that the energy balance of some recycling is highly questionable (notwithstanding the possibility of impoverished people offering much cheap labour), that sort of downgrade in our lifestyles is what one rabid side is afraid of: greening through poverty. If our GDP per capita were as low as Cuba's we'd be "super green". Dare to dream.


----------



## Jacklar (Jul 23, 2005)

Empirical data shows that climate change drives CO2 levels. We're getting ready to enter into an ice age. A doubling in CO2 would maybe raise global temperatures .75 degrees. Not to mention the temperature was higher by up to 2-3 degrees during the warming period of the middle ages, and much cooler during the little ice age. We're only again starting to warm up from the cooling period known as the little ice age.

People need to go beyond newspapers and read scientific data on global warming. The hottest period in the last century was during the 30s. Global temperatures are directly related to Sunspot activity, solar energy and fluxes in cosmic rays/energy. Talk to a local earth science dept. at a university and they'll tell you all about. CO2 has been much much higher in the past up to 16x and drastic climate change wasn't an issue. Climate change drives CO2 levels, not the other way around. 

Green technologies are a good thing, but this hype about global warming is false propaganda. Educate yourself beyond what your spoon fed in the media.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Yet another dissenter. Stand back Jaklar, they're gonna dump on you any time now.


----------



## DANdeMAN (Oct 20, 2006)

SINC said:


> Yet another dissenter. Stand back Jaklar, they're gonna dump on you any time now.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> Yet another dissenter. Stand back Jaklar, they're gonna dump on you any time now.


Ahh yes, the famous victimization argument when one has no credibility in their spew....


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> Ahh yes, the famous victimization argument when one has no credibility in their spew....


Apparently you cannot tell the difference between argument and opinion and know little of credibility.

For the record, that was an opinion and an offering of advice.

Want to argue about that?


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

Jacklar said:


> The hottest period in the last century was during the 30s. Global temperatures are directly related to Sunspot activity, solar energy and fluxes in cosmic rays/energy.


I don't see how this refutes the CO2 science. How is the sunspot activity of the 1930s relevant to current CO2 increases today? While the solar activity may have increased the world's temperature then, a majority of scientists have established that man-made carbon in the atmosphere is increasing temperature today. 

CA Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger expressed a wise philosophy about global warming. If you were checked out by 100 doctors and 98 of them told you that you are sick, but 2 of the doctors said you're well, which would you believe? While it's more convenient to believe in the 2% that disagree, it's too important an issue to take a chance.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> ..... know little of credibility.
> 
> 
> 
> Want to argue about that?


The main ones lacking credibility are the sources that some cite - of course SINC, you'd prefer to listen to Tim Ball....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MissGulch said:


> CA Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger expressed a wise philosophy about global warming. If you were checked out by 100 doctors and 98 of them told you that you are sick, but 2 of the doctors said you're well, which would you believe? While it's more convenient to believe in the 2% that disagree, it's too important an issue to take a chance.


First of all, the 98% figure has no basis in reality. What people believe is all over tmap and certainly doesn't result in a 98% consensus (I know that's an oxymoron).

A better comparison: put 100 Socialists in a room. If 98% of them say they need more of my money to give to others, they are right. Or we can go into the room with the 100 Libertarians, of whom 98% will support giving me a tax rebate. 

See, they are right!


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> First of all, the 98% figure has no basis in reality. What people believe is all over tmap and certainly doesn't result in a 98% consensus (I know that's an oxymoron).


That's right - the number is more likely 1000 to 1.


Macfury said:


> A better comparison: put 100 Socialists in a room. If 98% of them say they need more of my money to give to others, they are right. Or we can go into the room with the 100 Libertarians, of whom 98% will support giving me a tax rebate.
> 
> See, they are right!


Just goes to show that MF taints all with a political and partisan bias - facts be dammed, right?
I'm sure that if Missgulch stated that 1+1= 2, would be the first to shout "No, it's not"....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

AS: The comparison is apt, as the GHG regime is politically motivated.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

It is a question of damage to the environment external to what we pay for stuff (a market "externality"). Mercury, CFCs, filth in our rivers, etc. This only seems completely different because the complexity makes it have greater-than-zero uncertainty of the damage occurring, and what the damage is and will be. 

From leaded fuels, to CFCs, we have had to deal with increasingly difficult and dispersed environmental externalities as we learn more. Challenging, but not impossible.

Politics is about how best to approach the issue (damage and uncertainty internalised into market prices; regulations; public beatings etc.).


----------



## DANdeMAN (Oct 20, 2006)

Funny stuff... 

http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics


----------

