Turn out the global warming lights, the party is over
-
Always back to Al Gore. Jesus.
"It ggets to be a little like arguing with a guy who says we're going to hell if we don't repent now."
No, it's not like that at all. Mounds of scientific evidence and faith-based religious fundamentalism are nothing like each other.
I would certainly agree that it's next to pointless to argue with partisans who don't accept the science, and then claim to know what the real scientific answers are. That mostly pointless, other than to point out how ridiculous a position that is.
It's also not that interesting to argue with you about it, since your position on pretty much everything is only giving a shit about showing off how little you give a shit. If this were the 60s, I can't imagine you'd have been for civil rights. If it were the 20s, you probably wouldn't have lifted a finger to help women vote. The only thing that seems to upset you is people who identify problems with the status quo.
In this case, you're mad about people who want to do something about pollution. You just throw up your hands. This is your "position."
Awesome.
-
I could not give two shits about what Al Gore says on the matter. The dude claimed he invented the internet. I do, however, trust scientific papers on the topic. I could post a whole bunch of them that I struggle to understand the implications of. The problem is with people that they sensationalize science and twist it to get their point of view on a subject across. It's maddening.
Here is an article on expert credibility in climate change
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/...187107.abstract
Click the full text pdf to read the whole thing.
Read it.
Then read this,
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/...of-climate.html
This article includes a critique of what the study lacked, including comments by one of the papers authors. I am not pimping this paper as the be-all end-all to the conversation on climate change, I'm just saying that it is the most objective view that exists on the topic. There does exist some disparity, as described by the article, but Cal, I'm inclined to believe the side that's putting out more evidence. If you want me to believe that climate change isn't happening, then get your ass out in the field and go find a project that gives evidence of the contrary, because there are a shit ton of people that are working their asses off and saying it is.
-
Boston Globe: Scientists don't agree on global warming By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist, 11/05/98See: <A href="http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe/globehtml/309/Scientists_don_t_agree_on_global_wa.shtml">Boston Globe Article
Underway in Buenos Aires is a giant international conference on global warming, a follow-up to last December's United Nations-sponsored confab in Kyoto, Japan. Delegates to the summit aim to put teeth into the treaty that came out of Kyoto, which calls for the world's leading countries to reduce sharply their use of energy over the next decade and a half. If implemented, the treaty would force the most productive societies on earth - the ones that have led the way in making human life comfortable, safe, and prosperous - to slow their economic growth and degrade their standard of living.
The organizers of the Buenos Aires conference take it for granted, of course, that global warming is real. The ''consensus'' among scientists, it is said, is that the planet's temperature is rising, the cause of the rise is the use of fossil fuels, and disastrous climate changes are looming unless drastic changes are made. The media likewise tend to take it as a given that the experts are in accord on global warming. So do many politicians. ''The evidence of global warming keeps piling up,'' says Vice President Al Gore, who has made the issue a personal crusade, ''month after month, week after week.''
So if the scientists are all in agreement, who said this?
''We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto. ... 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 gases 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.''
The carping of an oil-industry flack? The ignorant mutterings of fringe antienvironmentalists?
No. It is a petition signed by nearly 17,000 US scientists, half of whom are trained in the fields of physics, geophysics, climate science, meteorology, oceanography, chemistry, biology, or biochemistry. The statement was circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine along with an eight-page abstract of the latest research on climate change. The abstract - written for scientists but comprehensible by laymen - concludes that there is no basis for believing (1) that atmospheric CO2 is causing a dangerous climb in global temperatures, (2) that greater concentrations of CO2 would be harmful, or (3) that human activity leads to global warming in the first place.
The cover letter accompanying the petition and abstract was penned by Frederick Seitz, a past president of the National Academy of Sciences. (All these documents are available online at www.oism.org/pproject.) The scientific ''consensus'' on global warming, it turns out, does not exist.
The Oregon Institute petition is no anomaly.
More than 100 climate scientists have endorsed the Leipzig Declaration, which describes the Kyoto treaty as ''dangerously simplistic, quite ineffective, and economically destructive.'' The endorsers include prominent scholars, among them David Aubrey of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute; Larry Brace of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center; meteorologist Austin Hogan, who co-edits the journal Atmospheric Research; Richard Lindzen, the Sloane Professor of Meteorology at MIT; and Patrick Michaels, a University of Virginia professor and past president of the American Association of State Climatologists.
''The dire predictions of a future warming have not been validated by the historic climate record,'' the Leipzig Declaration says bluntly. ''In fact, most climate specialists now agree that actual observations from both weather satellites and balloon-borne radiosondes show no current warming whatsoever - in direct contradiction to computer model results.'' The declaration, plus a wealth of information on every aspect of the global warming controversy, is posted at the Web site of the Science & Environmental Policy Project, www.sepp.org.
What is going on in Buenos Aires is a costly exercise in futility. The United States has not signed the Kyoto treaty; even if President Clinton does sign it, there is no chance the Senate will ratify it. And without US participation, any plan to curtail CO2 emissions is doomed - as it ought to be.
Nevertheless, it is important to explode the myth that most scientists are worried about global warming. Politicians shouldn't be permitted to hijack science in their pursuit of power. Environmentalists and journalists with an antibusiness itch to scratch should be cross-examined whenever they claim there is only one side to an issue of public policy.
We've been down this ''consensus'' road before. Remember when the Chicken Littles were warning that the earth was getting colder? ''The evidence in support of predictions [of global cooling] has now begun to accumulate so massively,'' Newsweek claimed in 1975, ''that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it.'' Except that there was no global cooling. The alarmists were wrong then. They're wrong now.
Jeff Jacoby is a Globe columnist.
-
You guys have a theory you love.
Have a gosh-bejeebers happy day !
But you're wrong.
I am right. mmgw claims of being "fact", is bogus.
The debate was NEVER "over".
That pretty much settles that. @@
-
And he produces yet another editorial from a right-wong columnist, and not even a good one. With the Newsweek "global cooling" trope in it too.
Aye aye aye.
Always the same shit, over and over. See what I mean, Steve?
-
Okay, Cal, I finally see your side of the argument. Some columnist in Globe knows more about climate change than the people that study it.
You're using the word "theory" as if it's a bad word. The only other people that do that are creationists.
-
Oh, and Vapor, Al Gore never claimed that he invented the internet. It's like saying Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from her house.
Neither ever happened. The opposite side just likes to pretend it did, or doesn't know.
-
-
Oh, and Vapor, Al Gore never claimed that he invented the internet. It's like saying Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from her house.
Neither ever happened. The opposite side just likes to pretend it did, or doesn't know.
Oh, and Vapor, Al Gore never claimed that he invented the internet.
-
Right. It would take a moron to misread what he's actually saying. He's talking about his Congressional initiatives. He's obviously not suggesting that he, himself, Al Gore, created the internet in his basement. But that didn't matter.
As Newt Gingrich said, "In all fairness, it's something Gore had worked on a long time. Gore is not the Father of the Internet, but in all fairness, Gore is the person who, in the Congress, most systematically worked to make sure that we got to an Internet."
And clearly, that's what he's talking about. But old beliefs die hard. I bet you won't see either Cal or T acknowledge this.
-
Beam me up to Planet Gore HERE and learn about the The $7 Billion Carbon Scam!!!
-
Okay, Cal, I finally see your side of the argument. Some columnist in Globe knows more about climate change than the people that study it.
You're using the word "theory" as if it's a bad word. The only other people that do that are creationists. Vapor
**************************
You completely miss the point, Heck style. It isn't the opinions of the deductions of the columnist that are important.
Go to the highlighted links and judge for yourself. Or, just keep parroting the progressive party line. Your choice.
It's just that he refers to the facts about the 17,000 scientists.
Let me help you deal with the facts in the article:
*********************************************
So if the scientists are all in agreement, who said this?
''We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto. ... 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 gases 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.''
The carping of an oil-industry flack? The ignorant mutterings of fringe antienvironmentalists?
No. It is a petition signed by nearly 17,000 US scientists, half of whom are trained in the fields of physics, geophysics, climate science, meteorology, oceanography, chemistry, biology, or biochemistry. The statement was circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine along with an eight-page abstract of the latest research on climate change. The abstract - written for scientists but comprehensible by laymen - concludes that there is no basis for believing (1) that atmospheric CO2 is causing a dangerous climb in global temperatures, (2) that greater concentrations of CO2 would be harmful, or (3) that human activity leads to global warming in the first place.
The cover letter accompanying the petition and abstract was penned by Frederick Seitz, a past president of the National Academy of Sciences. (All these documents are available online at www.oism.org/pproject.) The scientific ''consensus'' on global warming, it turns out, does not exist.
The Oregon Institute petition is no anomaly.
More than 100 climate scientists have endorsed the Leipzig Declaration, which describes the Kyoto treaty as ''dangerously simplistic, quite ineffective, and economically destructive.'' The endorsers include prominent scholars, among them David Aubrey of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute; Larry Brace of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center; meteorologist Austin Hogan, who co-edits the journal Atmospheric Research; Richard Lindzen, the Sloane Professor of Meteorology at MIT; and Patrick Michaels, a University of Virginia professor and past president of the American Association of State Climatologists.
''The dire predictions of a future warming have not been validated by the historic climate record,'' the Leipzig Declaration says bluntly. ''In fact, most climate specialists now agree that actual observations from both weather satellites and balloon-borne radiosondes show no current warming whatsoever - in direct contradiction to computer model results.'' The declaration, plus a wealth of information on every aspect of the global warming controversy, is posted at the Web site of the Science & Environmental Policy Project, www.sepp.org.
What is going on in Buenos Aires is a costly exercise in futility. The United States has not signed the Kyoto treaty; even if President Clinton does sign it, there is no chance the Senate will ratify it. And without US participation, any plan to curtail CO2 emissions is doomed - as it ought to be.
Nevertheless, it is important to explode the myth that most scientists are worried about global warming. Politicians shouldn't be permitted to hijack science in their pursuit of power. Environmentalists and journalists with an antibusiness itch to scratch should be cross-examined whenever they claim there is only one side to an issue of public policy.
We've been down this ''consensus'' road before. Remember when the Chicken Littles were warning that the earth was getting colder? ''The evidence in support of predictions [of global cooling] has now begun to accumulate so massively,'' Newsweek claimed in 1975, ''that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it.'' Except that there was no global cooling. The alarmists were wrong then. They're wrong now.
-
-
Cal, the "global cooling" bullshit just has to stop. There's no comparison between the small number of predictions of "global cooling" in the 70s and the comprehensive, worldwide mountain of evidence compiled in favor of AGW theory today. None.
You should drop that talking point. It's not a good one.
If you refuse to accept that the scientific community overwhelmingly accepts global warming theory as real and dangerous and potentially disastrous there's no helping you. You're obviously living in your own information bubble, like many of your other anti-intellectualists on the right.
Hope it's cozy in there.
-
Always back to Al Gore. Jesus.
"It ggets to be a little like arguing with a guy who says we're going to hell if we don't repent now."
No, it's not like that at all. Mounds of scientific evidence and faith-based religious fundamentalism are nothing like each other.
I would certainly agree that it's next to pointless to argue with partisans who don't accept the science, and then claim to know what the real scientific answers are. That mostly pointless, other than to point out how ridiculous a position that is.
It's also not that interesting to argue with you about it, since your position on pretty much everything is only giving a shit about showing off how little you give a shit. If this were the 60s, I can't imagine you'd have been for civil rights. If it were the 20s, you probably wouldn't have lifted a finger to help women vote. The only thing that seems to upset you is people who identify problems with the status quo.
In this case, you're mad about people who want to do something about pollution. You just throw up your hands. This is your "position."
Awesome.
In this case, you're mad about people who want to do something about pollution. You just throw up your hands.Awesome.
Let me quote a couple famous scientists from the Blazing Saddles institute.
"A man drinks like that and don't eat; he's gonna die!"
"When?"
But yes it's the same old things.
How serious is it?
What are all the causes?
How long do we have before it's too late?
How much is anyone willing to sacrifice to avert the natural disaster?
But I haven't heard anything new so far.
But I understand you're at least partially serious about the threat besides the fact you love to bicker.
WSS
-
There are answers to all of those questions, of course. And we've been through them all before. Ad naseum.
The most urgent reason to take action is because there's a small possibility of some really, really bad things happening. It may only be a 3-5 percent chance, but this is why people have fire insurance and flood insurance and life insurance - to protect against the possibility of catastrophe. The more likely probabilities are that things will just be regular bad, or really bad.
-
For anyone trying to predict the weather, is full of it. If you dont like what you have just wait 10 minutes and it will change.
AL Gore and the rest of his loonies are trying to pull off the biggest scam of all time all in the name of fear.
All AlGorians like Heck can be very annoying with all of their propaganda and lies.
-
We should take action because there is a small possibility?
POSSIBILITY? SMALL?
Nothing to do with politics or spread the wealth or global gov?
Nah.
There's a small possibility we might be in a car wreck, so we should
tax ourselves out the wazoo, give up all our wealth and civil rights and freedom,
and never drive a car again because we're emitting co2.
But never a word about preserving the globes rainforests.
Nope. Not one freakin word. You see, rainforests aren't a source of tax revenue, and political power.
You jokers WANT mmgw to be real, so it can benefit the coffers of the gov, and you want that gov
to be a gigantic nanny state. Reward all those have nots for their Dem votes.
And all the scientists who disagree, objectively, to this global warming scam?
Ignore them, discredit them, ridicule them, outlaw them, outcast them.
Why? Because you libs don't care about facts. You care about more political power for
your Democratic (now controlled lock stock and barrel by socialists/progressives) party.
This is America. Not going to happen.
Like the echeck scam. Pollution! Lower exhaust limits on cars! Have gov check for bad emmisions of cars
before they can get plates? No problem?
50 to 100 bucks charged to the customer for 60 seconds of metering? How the hell much does that
checker guy MAKE a freakin hour?
Oh, the state/country needed funds for other things?
Right. So, people rose up and put a stop to that fraud all over the country.
MMGW is a fraud. If it's ever proven to be true, we'll all know it.
But ONE FREAKIN TREE RING out of millions of acres of forest? You have to be kidding.
Oh, and Algore? Brilliant? LOL. NO. He's a political con man who is heavily invested in his mmgw crap.
Obamao ? Brilliant, eloquent, post partisan, going to bring us all together..?????? ROF,LMAO !
Give it up. Your idealogy is your own worst enemy.
-
-
Vapor translation:
"I can't handle the truth, so I'll find a movie clip to make fun of Cal"
LOL
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login