77 replies to this topic

[Jerrydevil]

It's called an analogy. The fact you're even calling it a straw man show it's not worth my time to debate this. Fact is, for me there is no debate. there is smart and there is stupid.

Personally I think that you fall into the Paterno camp of knowing full well the truth and just turning a blind eye in light of cost/benefit analysis ( ) which I can't dissuade you from - or just for your own message board amusement, which again makes my input pointless.

Then there are the truly obtuse who honestly think climate change is a myth. Why on earth would I ever try to enlighten them?

as for man made or not - it's not even part of the discussion for me. If it's inevitable then I'd rather tilt at windmills then sit on my fat ass making excuses for my sloth and/or gluttony.

What about those leaked e-mails? I like to call those e-mails "an inconvenient truth."

[DaneykoIsGod]

Yea, that's what happens when politics get involved in scientific research.

And that isn't even getting into the carbon taxes and cap-and-trade being proposed/implemented on state, national and international levels ...

[MantaRay]

What about those leaked e-mails? I like to call those e-mails "an inconvenient truth."

Science continues to support the case for curbing greenhouse-gas emissions so as to minimise the risks of catastrophe.

[devilsadvoc8]

It's called an analogy. The fact you're even calling it a straw man show it's not worth my time to debate this. Fact is, for me there is no debate. there is smart and there is stupid.

Personally I think that you fall into the Paterno camp of knowing full well the truth and just turning a blind eye in light of cost/benefit analysis ( ) which I can't dissuade you from - or just for your own message board amusement, which again makes my input pointless.

Then there are the truly obtuse who honestly think climate change is a myth. Why on earth would I ever try to enlighten them?

as for man made or not - it's not even part of the discussion for me. If it's inevitable then I'd rather tilt at windmills then sit on my fat ass making excuses for my sloth and/or gluttony.

Now where or where is that "obtuse" or "thick headed" emoticon when you need it. Despite repeated attempts to clarify an issue some here, prefer the name calling and insult from their lofty ivory tower approach to those that don't agree with them.

I will boil it down to this: If you don't think it worth your effort to enlighten someone who disagrees with you on climate change, why the hell do you post in this thread and others addressing this topic? Or is it some way to bolster your self-esteem with these grandiose generalizations and not one reference to a source.

I'll say it one more time and while I will try to use small words in order to help you understand it, I may have to use some big ones (but I will provide some alternative words to help you out):

Of course there is climate change. The earth's climate has changed ever since an atmosphere (the air around us) was existant (in place). The majority (most) of those that you so like to insult (call bad names) and stereotype (label) disagree with the portion (part) to which man is responsible. In other words, how much of climate change is anthropogenic (caused by your neighbors since you of course don't contribute at all). So while all of us value the earth's health, I will continue to challenge whether certain actions are appropriate (the right thing to do) in the absence of that conclusion (fact). I'll ask for about the 5th time on these forums, show me the scientific study that shows CO2 (the bad gas in our air according to scientists) levels are a LEADING indicator (sign) of global temperature increases (getting bigger and causing all the cute polar bears to die). That would be a reasonable starting point for proving causation (responsibility). Without that you can't.

So for the same reason I won't agree to a $10,000 vaccine (shot) for a disease (bad cold) that I am not at risk for, I will continue to disagree with some of the proposals to combat global warming.

By all means go tilt at windmills if you are going to continue to contribute in the same manner in which you have to date.

[Jimmy Leeds]

^^^^ Brilliant ^^^^

Just hoping we can avert Manta's "catastrophe".

[Kicksave Brodeur!!]

oh tut, tut biff.. lets retire to the conneticut mansion for some tea and crumpets... leave the commoners to their gluttony

[Devils Dose]

i just thought about this the other day, but why is Global Warming adapted as such a strong POLITICAL issue. its like the liberal point of view is it exists, and the conservative point of view seems to be it does not. but in reality, what is either party gonna do about it, whether it exists or not? Why will conservatives defend it so strongly- like what part of it offends them? And why do liberals take offense to it, and what makes them special to say that its their idea to try and fix it.

.. because as sad as it is, if it is a true theory, this world is too late and it does not have enough motivation to actually turn it around, or slow it done. its sad but true

Well there are traditional political alignments on issues of environment vs. economic activity. And those are at least somewhat consistent with the sides' other political beliefs: free market Republicans being against detrimental government interference with the economy, and progressive Democrats feeling that noble enough causes deserve legislation. So this isn't something that's out of left field, it's fairly predictable really. So all of the emotion probably comes from the debate over what to do being right around the heart of the political sides. The scientific debate is another matter, and it really is a shame that all of this political wrangling interferes with that.


My understanding: I was under the belief that most meteorological scientists agree that water vapor, CO₂, and methane (CH₄) levels are higher than they have been in many millennia and that this does have a significant effect on the atmosphere and retaining heat. Also, most scientists on the ground agree that most of the increase in the gasses came from human activities (destroying forests, burning fossil fuels, etc.). Where the most uncertainty and debate exists in the scientific community is over all of the feedback mechanisms that would determine the long-term effect. For those who don't know, feedback is when a change in one factor (greenhouse gas, temperatures) affects another factor (sea ice, plant growth rates) which then affects the first factor. So if positive feedback dominates, that could be the "catastrophe" that Manta was referring to, where the loop runs away out of control. However, if negative feedback dominates, then most of the effects of human activity on climate would be temporary. But there are so many factors, that is difficult to know which way this will go.
If I made a serious error above, I want to know (no sarcasm there).

[Jas0nMacIsaac]

Not that I care about the topic all that much but haven't there been multiple changes of climate throughout time. Even in the past 2 or 3 hundred years I thought there was a mini ice age. I believe most of global warming is a money making industry just as cancer research is. Someone can make a dollar off of it and they run with it.

[Daniel]

The fishiness (at least from my perspective) of global warming awareness is that virtually all economic activity in some way results in CO2 emissions (even breathing). This is a backdoor means of restoring the command economy under the guise of environmentalism. Even anti-smoking advocates have latched on to this as exhaled cigarette smoke releases green house gases.

In my unscientific opinion, you can't pump CO2 into the air as much as the human population does without having some effect. However, the global warming alarmists haven't seemed to make a concrete prediction, other than to point to seemingly out of the ordinary weather events and say, "see I told you so." (While at the same time dismissing periodic cold weather as aberrations).

[Pepperkorn]

Not that I care about the topic all that much but haven't there been multiple changes of climate throughout time. Even in the past 2 or 3 hundred years I thought there was a mini ice age. I believe most of global warming is a money making industry just as cancer research is. Someone can make a dollar off of it and they run with it.

Clearly a man who ditched the bullsh!t that is actuarial science.

I appreciate what you all have to say, i do.

I also have a former undergrad here who loves to justify his smoking with the fact that statistically speaking he probably will not die of lung cancer... so that makes smoking OK and all these laws are just nonsense cooked up to kill the tobacco industry. The public at large has just been duped.

Most MDs I know say - yeah -- my smoking probably will contribute significantly to my (future poor) quality of life if not to the specific length --- but I'm doing it anyway.

I can accept the MDs honesty over the dopey kid from Virginia spouting off an argument he got from some pro-tobacco article.

again -- not a straw man -- an analogy -- and an analogy born from Jason's disapproval of cancer research.

They are all using the same rationale - and hopefully some of you can kind of get the true relationship between the research, the results and the counter arguments.


The solution is to climate change is to decrease the surplus population, in keeping with the literary seasonal situation

it's too late anyhow so wtf!

Edited by Pepperkorn, 12 December 2011 - 11:55 AM.

[FloyddGondolli]

Much like the Nazis found Scientist to prove that the Aryan was superior to all and other groups were scientifically inferior and or the how Scientist spoke of the world being flat and those who questioned either group or any science were punished.

Politics has entered this debate and they have created a deritivates markets in the form of carbon offsets and carbon taxes much like the Catholic Church had a scheme to pay off your sins several hundred years ago. Funny how the Warmers resort to name calling or churlish straw man. Scientist have an agenda and or are useful idiots in this scheme. There are other scientist who in fear of being blacklisted don't chime in. There are vocal scientist on the other side as well. I haven't formed an opinion on this matter because I'm still waiting for the Global Cooling to come that was predicted in the 1970's. I also notice the rebranding of the issue to say "I told you so" from Global Warming to Climate Change whatever happens. AT This point, I just see people seeing a way to make money and create a new revenue stream and more market intervention by governments and the UN. Firms like Goldman Sachs has alot of energy contracts based on higher energy prices in the future and a way to get there is cause or false/inconclusive science. Green Energy, check your PSEG bill to see what "Societal Benefit" costs along with higher rates you are already paying for S recs credits and group think social engineering.

[mrthemike]

Much like the Nazis found Scientist to prove that the Aryan was superior to all and other groups were scientifically inferior and or the how Scientist spoke of the world being flat and those who questioned either group or any science were punished.

Politics has entered this debate and they have created a deritivates markets in the form of carbon offsets and carbon taxes much like the Catholic Church had a scheme to pay off your sins several hundred years ago. Funny how the Warmers resort to name calling or churlish straw man. Scientist have an agenda and or are useful idiots in this scheme. There are other scientist who in fear of being blacklisted don't chime in. There are vocal scientist on the other side as well. I haven't formed an opinion on this matter because I'm still waiting for the Global Cooling to come that was predicted in the 1970's. I also notice the rebranding of the issue to say "I told you so" from Global Warming to Climate Change whatever happens. AT This point, I just see people seeing a way to make money and create a new revenue stream and more market intervention by governments and the UN. Firms like Goldman Sachs has alot of energy contracts based on higher energy prices in the future and a way to get there is cause or false/inconclusive science. Green Energy, check your PSEG bill to see what "Societal Benefit" costs along with higher rates you are already paying for S recs credits and group think social engineering.

Bad science is bad science. The things you mentioned above have been rejected because...well...it was sh!tty science. This global warming topic is a very complicated issue and there is evidence to support a side. The unfortunate issue is the involvement of politics in something that really should not have an agenda.

[FloyddGondolli]

Bad science is bad science. The things you mentioned above have been rejected because...well...it was sh!tty science. This global warming topic is a very complicated issue and there is evidence to support a side. The unfortunate issue is the involvement of politics in something that really should not have an agenda.

It's still garbage science since there is evidence that data was manipulated to further an agenda. Science may be neutral or fact, Scienctist are men/women and have their biases.

We are witnessing bad science since it has been politicized and there is a clear agenda. If the Nazis win, the myth of their science would be taught as that, science. Hindsight is 20/20 and we can say these things now looking back 60 years later.

We live in a propanganda world and in that vortex of Climate Change talk and the conference in Durban, SA at the moment. People are referred to Climate Deniers akin to a Holocaust one and the difference is the side that is pushing this agenda is acting as if the debate is over. Carbon tax credits and offsets galore. It's a non starter and irresponsible of government or anyone to act if this is settled within the community.

Edited by FloyddGondolli, 12 December 2011 - 03:46 PM.

[devilsfan26]

Not that I care about the topic all that much but haven't there been multiple changes of climate throughout time. Even in the past 2 or 3 hundred years I thought there was a mini ice age. I believe most of global warming is a money making industry just as cancer research is. Someone can make a dollar off of it and they run with it.

I don't consider myself an expert on this topic either but I think the issue with this period of climate change is that it is rising much higher than previous periods of increasing temperatures, so the debate is over whether or not humans are exacerbating it.

The fishiness (at least from my perspective) of global warming awareness is that virtually all economic activity in some way results in CO2 emissions (even breathing). This is a backdoor means of restoring the command economy under the guise of environmentalism. Even anti-smoking advocates have latched on to this as exhaled cigarette smoke releases green house gases.

In my unscientific opinion, you can't pump CO2 into the air as much as the human population does without having some effect. However, the global warming alarmists haven't seemed to make a concrete prediction, other than to point to seemingly out of the ordinary weather events and say, "see I told you so." (While at the same time dismissing periodic cold weather as aberrations).

There are also the people who say things like, "It was 60 degrees in December so global warming is a myth." Whether you believe in it or not, pointing to any one isolated incident is the wrong way to go about it, we are talking about trends taking place over decades here.

[devilsadvoc8]

I don't consider myself an expert on this topic either but I think the issue with this period of climate change is that it is rising much higher than previous periods of increasing temperatures, so the debate is over whether or not humans are exacerbating it.

correlation (especially weak correlation) does not equal causation.

This applies to global warming, cancer, whatever. The climate is an extremely complex open system.

[DaneykoIsGod]

Canada has backed out of the Kyoto Protocol:

For Canada, the cost of either meeting its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol, or failing to do so, was too much to bear.

On Monday, the country became the first signatory of the landmark climate treaty to back out of the deal, citing the huge potential cost of legally binding commitments.

Confirming the move, environment minister Peter Kent said to meet its obligations under the accord Canada would have to take every single vehicle off its roads.

"Every car, truck, ATV, tractor, ambulance, police car," he elaborated in a media briefing, before giving another equally unpalatable option of closing down the country's entire farming and agricultural sector and cutting heat to every home, building and factory.

If the country failed to do so, Kent said taxpayers would have to give $14 billion to other countries "with no impact on emissions or the environment."

And further down in the story, they talk about the new Durban Platform:

The new deal, agreed Sunday, brings in major emitters of greenhouse gas emissions including the United States, China, India and Brazil. For that, it was hailed a success, although critics still argue that the timetable is too loose.

The package includes the first contributions to a $100 billion Green Climate Fund to help developing countries to invest in clean energy and adapt to climate change. An Adaptation Committee will be formed to co-ordinate adaptation activities worldwide with agreement on a "Technology Mechanism" to smooth the way.

Maybe it's because I don't trust anyone involved in these global political attempts to save us from ourselves, but this looks like more of the same "prevent developing countries from developing until they can do it expensively ... er ... I mean cleanly" stuff that earned previous policies the label of imperialism.

[Daniel]

There are also the people who say things like, "It was 60 degrees in December so global warming is a myth." Whether you believe in it or not, pointing to any one isolated incident is the wrong way to go about it, we are talking about trends taking place over decades here.

Yes, I understand that. However, global warming advocates do the same thing, just in reverse. Hell I once saw a bumper sticker that says "Remember Katrina, Fight Global Warming."

[Pepperkorn]

No one abides by any of these agreements, not Europe, not anyone. They're all pretty meaningless. It's all lip service - that's why I don't get why you all get so head-up - no one IS doing anything.

No one is getting rich off of green energy. As for PSE&G they offer Green energy as an option -- you don't pay for it if you don't elect to. Whatever fee it is you think is for green energy is indeed a lie -- you are correct. It’s the existing damaging energy provider profiting off of a trend. It’s not some Green Energy company founded by Al Gore sneaking in a cut of PSE&G’s profits – why is that even being held up when it’s the CURRENT ENERGY PROVIDER PROFITTING OFF OF A LIE. You’re damaging your own argument holding that up as some proof our current paradigm is fine as is. That IS the current paradigm. And if they’re putting up windmills – really why do you give a fvck about it? Do you know what other sh!t they’re doing? Do you give a fvck what every other little bullsh!t fee your paying for is going to? what else is new in the corporate world?

Also I get no indication you all have read anything of the real research but rather just the op-eds denouncing it. If you don't give a sh!t then don't waste time finding ways to deride a hypothesis you haven't even researched yourself. It's hard work to look at the science, to understand the science -- it's too hard for me to get into the real science of it. I’ll be honest. I just discuss with interested scientists who do understand the research and results published - but I get lost trying to retain it all. 732 (EDIT: 731 haha! I made you a step above yourself) and Triumph are so much more patient about retaining stuff…

There IS a debate in meteorology/climatology - but it's far more subtle than the dufus stuff posted here. It’s too deep for me. Basically what I hear is: OK all signs point to the sh!t hitting the fan NOW -- and if man caused it or not there is nothing that can be done now. ALL agree that it would help to cut carbon emissions – the debate is: would it ease the transition? Could species stand a greater chance of surviving through adapting? Climate change is real and we’re fvcked or we’re not. THAT is the debate. It’s quite cynical and humorous. You guys are actually far more in the Al Gore scientific camp as far as outlook goes. They’re all positive and kind of “let things coast and we might be OK!” But when push comes to shove consensus is pretty much ‘what hell - we’re fvcked.’ The science you guys spout disproving global warming is actually the “We are soooo fvcked” camp from what I gather. Ah me… I hate it when I get amused/bemused I really don’t feel that patronizing.

It would be a very interesting debate if we all got on the real page -- but you're all consumed with the politicizing of it. It reads like no one cares about anything but that it must be wrong and there must be a political and economic reason to claim climate change is real and significant to our near-term existence, much less man's responsibility therein.

Here's the thing -- It's far more lucrative that there NOT be global warming. If/when it becomes impossible to deny, then it will be far more lucrative for man to have zero responsibility thus zero control over exacerbating the problem. If anyone wants to make easy money and control populations - climate change being a myth is really the way to go. Isn't that kinda obvious? You can make a few bucks here and there appealing to a special interest group but that's not where the big money is. Ingenuity takes investment - inherent risk - there is no immediate monetary gain directly attributed to controlling carbon emissions. Why do you guys seriously think that's even a mildly logical argument... oh wait i know... BECAUSE YOU BOUGHT INTO IT! DUHHH????? I mean duh? THIS is why I can't respond to the inanity. Mind-blowingly stupid... and the fact you think I'm THAT stupid... no wonder I think you all are inane -- seriously? You know... I mean I want to hold back and be respectful but seriously... with that position... you can' even take ONE STEP onto the debate forum... you all think your coming from some original place when you are so clearly being manipulated – and you tell me I am? Just --- how can I even respond to that – THAT is what I’m talking about. That is why I cannot respond – you have just GOT to be kidding me!

“There's a burglar in the bedroom while you're fiddling in the parlor!”

And some a$$hole is going to pluck out one out-of-context sentence I write here and expound on it with stupid little condescensions peppered here and there -- and then …resume his labours with an improved opinion of himself, and in a more facetious temper than usual. Why would I even respond to such crap?

Edited by Pepperkorn, 13 December 2011 - 01:14 PM.

[devilsfan26]

Yes, I understand that. However, global warming advocates do the same thing, just in reverse. Hell I once saw a bumper sticker that says "Remember Katrina, Fight Global Warming."

I know, just pointing out that it happens on both sides.

[devilsadvoc8]

I wouldn't want to quote PK's latest post lest I give it any more credence than it should be accorded.

You can't get rich off of green? How much money was thrown at Solyndra on the pure hope that it would produce a viable product when all signs pointed to it being a failure (oh but if you are connected to the president and a big donor you can rob the taxpayers for $500 million). They would have gotten another huge loan had the whistle not been blown on it. Hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars for a bad business idea just because it is green! Try doing a little research on some of the companies Al Gore is connected to. Dig a little deeper into what is the truth out there before making insane statements like "nobody is getting rich off of green energy".

How absolutely hypocritical of you to accuse others of just reading biased op/eds but then one paragraph later you claim you understand the real arguments but the actual papers are too deep for you. Huh? So you don't understand them yet claim you understand them? What the fvck? Do you read what you write? At all?

How condesending is this : It would be a very interesting debate if we all got on the real page. Oh, if only us stupid people could just agree that you are so very right. What a joke.

God knows what points you are trying to make in the last two paragraphs. Do you really believe that "there is no immediate monetary gain directly attributed to controlling carbon emissions" or are you disagreeing with that statement. I just can't tell what you are writing.

I gave you a simple challenge PK which should be simple since you claim to have read and understand the issues much more than those of us you "just read op/eds" and are being manipulated. One challenge that you have refused to address multiple times since I have asked you this before in previous threads:
Show me the study that proves that CO2 emmissions are a leading indicator of global temperatures. That is a fairly simple basic step in determining if global warming is anthropogenic. CO2 goes up then temps go up. Pretty f'n simple.

As for population and waste, yes I agree both need to be addressed. How do you propose addressing population growth. Do you have any ideas or shall I just wait for those pearls of wisdom to drop down from your ivory tower?