10:10 - Global warming 'no pressure' *Somewhat graphic*

[hazlnut]

What about those of us who are skeptics for legitimate reasons?

Partisan deniers = A GOP pundit or supporter with no real understanding of the issues who makes moronic remarks about cold weather and global 'warming'.

industry-funded front groups = an organization that purports to represent one agenda while in reality it serves some other interest whose sponsorship is hidden or rarely mentioned -- typically, a corporate or government sponsor. For example: New Hope Environmental Services, a PR firm run by Patrick Michaels.

Many specific aspects of GW and CC get questioned by legitimate scientists all the time. It's called peer-review.

An OP-Ed piece is not peer-review.

 

[hazlnut]

Re: No Pressure, cut your carbon!

I want a button like that.

I wish Barbara Boxer had that button at all EPW hearings.

 

[Geo Patric]

Finally, EVEN IF the science wasn't a complete hoax and a fraud on every front....

so... which psychotic paranoid delusion do you support? WHO is perpetrating this "fraud"? who is benefitinbg from this "hoax"?

climatologists across the globe are presenting increasing evidence almost daily that this is happening. what resources can you point to that demonstrates that THOSE evidences are fake?

good lord. I should have put some serious money into the Tin Hat market years ago.

geo.

 

[Geo Patric]

What if people have a legitimate reason to dislike Gore for his climate dishonesty and millions he is making off of pushing his agenda?

can you identify ONE million?

i hear Xanax is good.

geo.

 

[DarkWizard12]

Partisan deniers = A GOP pundit or supporter with no real understanding of the issues who makes moronic remarks about cold weather and global 'warming'.

industry-funded front groups = an organization that purports to represent one agenda while in reality it serves some other interest whose sponsorship is hidden or rarely mentioned -- typically, a corporate or government sponsor. For example: New Hope Environmental Services, a PR firm run by Patrick Michaels.

Many specific aspects of GW and CC get questioned by legitimate scientists all the time. It's called peer-review.

An OP-Ed piece is not peer-review.

So, you're saying you have to be a scientist to have legitimate reason to have view against the concept of Global warming?

 

[Geo Patric]

So, you're saying you have to be a scientist to have legitimate reason to have view against the concept of Global warming?

well, the issue IS a scientific issue. one would expect SOME degree of familiarity with the science. no, not a scientist, necessarily, but not an antiscience nut either. not a "GOD made the world and it operates according to his principles and man has no effect" kinda sorta irrationalist.

geo.

 

[DarkWizard12]

well, the issue IS a scientific issue. one would expect SOME degree of familiarity with the science. no, not a scientist, necessarily, but not an antiscience nut either. not a "GOD made the world and it operates according to his principles and man has no effect" kinda sorta irrationalist.

geo.

so, how do you know if someone is an anti-science nut? because it seems to me if you dare have an opinion against global warming, even to think it is fake, you are automatically an anti-science nut who MUST believe in young earth creationism.

 

[Geo Patric]

so, how do you know if someone is an anti-science nut? because it seems to me if you dare have an opinion against global warming, even to think it is fake, you are automatically an anti-science nut who MUST believe in young earth creationism.

well, it IS true that i have yet to encounter anyone who denies the science who was not a antiscientist, but of course denying it does not define one as so.

to answer your question, you are antiscience if you reject empirical science with no valid alternative science. opinions are free, which, i suppose, is why they spread so easily, but they are not science.

most folks who will claim that it is "fake" do not actually "think" it is... claiming that demonstrable science is falsified is fundamentally irrational - it is not the product of "thinking". claiming that the overwhelming number of qualified individudals on the planet are conspiring to defraud you in someway undefined is fundamentally irrational. there is no material gain to be had in accepting the science greater to or even anywhere near equal to the profit in denying it.

you must be simply nuts, so ideologically rigid that you have become enslaved or fanatically religious. well... same thing, really.

geo.

 

[DarkWizard12]

well, it IS true that i have yet to encounter anyone who denies the science who was not a antiscientist, but of course denying it does not define one as so.

to answer your question, you are antiscience if you reject empirical science with no valid alternative science. opinions are free, which, i suppose, is why they spread so easily, but they are not science.

most folks who will claim that it is "fake" do not actually "think" it is... claiming that demonstrable science is falsified is fundamentally irrational - it is not the product of "thinking". claiming that the overwhelming number of qualified individudals on the planet are conspiring to defraud you in someway undefined is fundamentally irrational. there is no material gain to be had in accepting the science greater to or even anywhere near equal to the profit in denying it.

you must be simply nuts, so ideologically rigid that you have become enslaved or fanatically religious.

geo.

What about people who don't have an opinion on global warming, but only on the laws that congress passes in an attempt to "curb" global warming? I don't really give a **** if the earth is warming or cooling, nor do I think many other conservative. Doing all this "recycling" and ****, while good, is useless, and think cap and trade is stupid and a bad idea. Science can do it's own little thing in my opinion, but when you say lets tax **** and regulate people's activities in an attempt to prevent climate change, when we all know the world is going to nuke itself anyway, quite frankly, yea, I think it's ridiculous.

am I an anti-science nut then?

 

[hazlnut]

So, you're saying you have to be a scientist to have legitimate reason to have view against the concept of Global warming?

No. That's not what I said.

I'm not a scientist -- however, I trust the process, 3 decades of peer-reviewed research has told us that global warming is caused by man. The vast majority of the world's scientists and NASA, our best and brightest. I understand how the rigorous process works.

I also understand how industries utilized PR firms, lobbyists, and paid professionals to forward their own agenda.

 

[Geo Patric]

What about people who don't have an opinion on global warming, but only on the laws that congress passes in an attempt to "curb" global warming?

well, if you disagree with the actions of your representatives in congress you should make your views known to them and if they do not respond in ways that you think appropriate, vote for someone else next time. that is how democracy works.

I don't really give a **** if the earth is warming or cooling, nor do I think many other conservative.

yeah... i remember lying in the dentists chair, high as a kite on nitrous, thinking of this and that when the good man removed his forearms from my mouth and asked how i was doing. I said i was fine... a little numb and indifferent... rather like a republican. he though that pretty funny.

Doing all this "recycling" and ****, while good, is useless,

good but useless?

and we think cap and trade is stupid.

why is that?

Science can do it's own little thing in my opinion, but when you say lets tax **** and regulate people's activities in an attempt to prevent climate change, when we all know the world is going to nuke itself anyway,

it is?

am I an anti-science nut then?

well, no, you do not deny valid science, you just do not care. indifferent to the well being of future generations, to the rest of life in earth... but not irrationally rejecting what can be shown to be true. just uncaring. sociopaths are nuts, but not antiscience nuts, no.

geo.

 

[BmanMcfly]

so... which psychotic paranoid delusion do you support? WHO is perpetrating this "fraud"? who is benefitinbg from this "hoax"?

I'd say I support the psychotic delusion where CO2 is a NUTRIENT, NOT pollutant... where CO2 MIGHT have a NEGLIGIBLE impact on the earths climate in the grand scheme of things. That while CO2 might serve to INCREASE the earths temperature, even that is offset by the pollution that often comes with machine made CO2; that is carbon monoxide is more toxic than CO2, the sulfur oxides have a larger impact on acid rains, the particulate that's ejected, etc... DOES serve to offset this... but then there's larger factors like global cloud cover will have a negative impact on the climate...

Bottom line, we DO NOT fully understand the system of climate, anyone that claims otherwise is LYING to you.

Who is benefitting?? The scientists who are now geting millions if not billions of dollars a year in research funding SO LONG as there is something to 'alarm the world' and to push this concept that 'something must be done tomorrow'.

climatologists across the globe are presenting increasing evidence almost daily that this is happening. what resources can you point to that demonstrates that THOSE evidences are fake?

There's a variety of reasons why the 'science' is coming to this conclusion :
a ) placing more and more thermometres that are influenced by artificial heat sources (almost 90% of them in the US alone are next to at least one source of artificial heat)
b) That the high altitude thermometers are being removed world wide in favor of those gathering higher temperatures
c) That trees DO NOT make good thermometers UNLESS you take into account ALL the factors of growth beyond temperature and that you KNOW these measurements within a realm of accuracy.
d) That the scientists not make up data and forumulas to 'trick' the data into coming to your conclusion
e) Software that was written in such a way that NO MATTER the raw data the results would show a climate warming.

good lord. I should have put some serious money into the Tin Hat market years ago.

geo.

And there you go... it's too bad your friends were CAUGHT in their conspiracy to commit large scale scientific fraud that's set back our understanding of the environment by roughly 15-20 years, or else your 'label' of conspiracy theorist might actually hold some sort of validity... it WAS theory only a year or two ago, but now it's been an exposed for what it is... and now those that are so heart set at pushing the political agenda that the science was meant to legitimize... well, that's why you see examples like these escalating.... I limited the commercials and sources in this thread to strictly NEW examples, but make no doubt that regardless of even if the 'science' had SOME merit (ok fine the science has SOME merit, but is moslty flawed / fraudulent) there are, for lack of a better term, psychopaths whose agenda is to 'green the world' and kill anyone that gets in the way.

So, that's what this environmentalism agenda really is once you scratch the surface... it's little more then the concept that humans are bad and mostly have to be eliminated.. a neo-eugenics model.

If they REALLY DID give two ****S about the earth, we would be talking about REAL pollution and detrimental things that's going on... but I HAVE YET to find an environmentalist that is willing to drop CO2 to discuss these issues and how to remedy. Not 1... they are just control freaks that want to tell everyone what kind of car to drive, what kind of toilet paper to use, etc.

 

[Geo Patric]

I'd say I support the psychotic delusion where CO2 is a NUTRIENT, NOT pollutant...

well, as an animal speaking for animals, i would say, yeah... 'delusion' is definitely le mot juste.

but properly speaking, it is not so much the chemicals themselves as their concentration (ppb) and the level of the atmosphere where they are concentrating.

ozone, for instance is essential for life on the planet to exist at all... but it must needs be in the proper zone where it can absorb energy while keeping it away from the living things NOT in the lower atmosphere where it heat US up.

where CO2 MIGHT have a NEGLIGIBLE impact on the earths climate in the grand scheme of things. That while CO2 might serve to INCREASE the earths temperature, even that is offset by the pollution that often comes with machine made CO2; that is carbon monoxide is more toxic than CO2, the sulfur oxides have a larger impact on acid rains, the particulate that's ejected, etc... DOES serve to offset this... but then there's larger factors like global cloud cover will have a negative impact on the climate...

sorry... having difficulty making much sense of the above. CO is more toxic than CO2 to breathe, yes. we can (and do) pass CO2 as well as we do the other inert gases such as Argon which is the gas with the greatest concentration in the breathable atmosphere. CO, though, is lethal. But the danger posed by CO2 is not its lethality when breathed, but it effects on the climate.

increased cloud cover is a result of increase ocean temperatures which is a result of increased atmospheric temperatures. the oceans can only cool by passing heat energy through the atmosphere which it cannot do if the atmosphere is already warmed.. increased ocean temps increase vaporization, itself a cause of increase heat retention... and so on...

and i believe there are a lotta folks working very hard to counter the effects of acid rain.

Bottom line, we DO NOT fully understand the system of climate, anyone that claims otherwise is LYING to you.

we do not fully understand a lot of things. we understand many things well enough to appreciate how they can affect us. we understand how temperature affects climate and how climate affects us well enough to know that modifying the atmosphere in such a way as to increase the heat absorbtive chemisty to the point that it will change the overall planet temperature will have significant, even severe repurcussions. and no, no one is lying.

Who is benefitting?? The scientists who are now geting millions if not billions of dollars a year in research funding SO LONG as there is something to 'alarm the world' and to push this concept that 'something must be done tomorrow'.

and... you think they are pocketing those billions? or that they depend on them to keep their jobs? you think that there are not sufficient areas of science begging investigation that they have to fabricate them? sorry... paranoic ranting. there is no reason whatsoever to accept that premise except that you may have investments in industries that will be affected by reduction of greenhouse gasses OR are inclined to be duped by those who are... or you are simply paranoid.

There's a variety of reasons why the 'science' is coming to this conclusion :...

can you qualify ANY of these as being the cause for the 'false science' you claim?

And there you go... it's too bad your friends were CAUGHT in their conspiracy to commit large scale scientific fraud

would you care to attempt to show this? i would not try that 'british memo' thing... it has been shown to be baloney from the jump.

there are, for lack of a better term, psychopaths whose agenda is to 'green the world' and kill anyone that gets in the way.

and doubtless, you can show this... show the attempted murders of the fine, heroic scientists that tried to "reveal the ugly truth"? You have made a great many claims in your post. can you show ANY ONE of them to be true?

So, that's what this environmentalism agenda really is once you scratch the surface... it's little more then the concept that humans are bad and mostly have to be eliminated.. a neo-eugenics model.

wow! you really have it bad! well, i have to thank you for your demonstration of a true anti-science nutty theory. i defy anyone to beat it. and i defy you to provide reliable evidence to demonstrate any of it.

geo.

 

[Barbbtx]

well, the issue IS a scientific issue. one would expect SOME degree of familiarity with the science. no, not a scientist, necessarily, but not an antiscience nut either. not a "GOD made the world and it operates according to his principles and man has no effect" kinda sorta irrationalist.

geo.

I tend to believe these scientists. I doubt they got huge govt. grants to come to their conclusions.

May 30, 2008 ... More than 31000 scientists have signed a petition denying that man is responsible for global warming.
Scientists sign petition denying man-made global warming - Telegraph
The academics, including 9,000 with PhDs, claim that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane are actually beneficial for the environment

 

[BmanMcfly]

The academics, including 9,000 with PhDs, claim that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane are actually beneficial for the environment

That said, this doesn't mean that we are not damaging the environment, but rather that CO2 is not the CAUSE of this environmental damage, and you can't take a single chemical and say that it's the cause of the worlds problems when the reality is so much more complex then that.

 

[RightinNYC]

Re: No Pressure, cut your carbon!

Bad ad because they forgot that Americans don't do irony

Yes, Americans are just too dumb to understand the humor of the ad. That's the only plausible reason why anyone would think it's not fantastic.

 

[Guy Incognito]

most folks who will claim that it is "fake" do not actually "think" it is... claiming that demonstrable science is falsified is fundamentally irrational - it is not the product of "thinking". claiming that the overwhelming number of qualified individudals on the planet are conspiring to defraud you in someway undefined is fundamentally irrational.

This is nonsense. I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that thoughts have to be rational. You can disbelieve in AGW, and even be a conspiracy theorist and still be "thinking," you know, "thoughts." I think what you mean is that most folks don't understand science.

The problem with the climate change issue is that it has become such a political football it is hard to know what to believe unless you truly understand science on either side of the aisle. It is irritating when environmentalists overstate the case. A consensus among scientists that the climate is changing in a way that humans are a contributing cause of it. That's not a scientific consensus of doomsday. Al Gore did make exaggerations in Inconvenient Truth. But as much as the Democrats are capable of alarmism, the Republicans are able to sort of wade in the shallow end and distort the truth to suit their agenda. The truth is somewhere in the middle. The truth that global climate change is real, it is cause by people, and it is going to be very problematic. It doesn't help that the science, while broadly in agreement, is still open ended. It is possible that the climate will still be exactly the same 100 or 200 years from now. Or it could be changed dramatically in 50. We just don't really know. Until we invent weather machines to manipulate the climate to our will, we'll just have to wait and see how to climate is going to be and adapt our society to it.

In the mean time the bigger issue is allocation of resources. I'd rather see a million dollars going to Pakistan than as a grant to some climatologist studying glacier melt. The real impact of global climate change isn't going to be felt in the US, but in the impoverished area of the world. Flooding in Pakistan and Bangladesh, desertification in the Sahel, these sort of things are real environmental crises we need to deal with. We're wasting our resources trying to stop the climate from changing.

 

[UtahBill]

Re: No Pressure, cut your carbon!

If we really want clean air with the proper proportions of CO2, we need to plug all those volcanoes....they emit more pollutants that all other sources combined.

 

[Gibberish]

Re: No Pressure, cut your carbon!

Staples needs to get in on some cross promotion with their Easy Button.

So maybe I don't get the ad. Is it saying that you have a choice to not contribute but you will be killed if you choose not to? Hilarious...

 

[BmanMcfly]

This is nonsense. I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that thoughts have to be rational. You can disbelieve in AGW, and even be a conspiracy theorist and still be "thinking," you know, "thoughts." I think what you mean is that most folks don't understand science.

But on even the MOST BASIC concept like the sun's energy is the largest factor in the global climate gets denied... 'the sun has no impact', is an argument I've seen... but then will compare lower solar energy with the scewed / fraudulent data on the climate and say 'see the sun has no impact'.

The problem with the climate change issue is that it has become such a political football it is hard to know what to believe unless you truly understand science on either side of the aisle.

Agreed, there are two sides of extremists on this one...

It is irritating when environmentalists overstate the case.

Can you show me where they have NOT overstated the case??
- Polar bears numbers are on the rise
- Forests are reclaiming lost ground much faster then anticipated
- Crustaceans can grow thicker shells if the water becomes more acidic (from a PH of 7.5 - 7.3, so from a base to slightly less base)
- ice caps melt and freeze year after year
- The himalayans are not melting
- etc...

A consensus among scientists that the climate is changing in a way that humans are a contributing cause of it.

Most of them not even scientists....

That's not a scientific consensus of doomsday. Al Gore did make exaggerations in Inconvenient Truth.

To the point that in some countries the film must come with a warning about the film being 'entertainment only'.

But as much as the Democrats are capable of alarmism, the Republicans are able to sort of wade in the shallow end and distort the truth to suit their agenda. The truth is somewhere in the middle. The truth that global climate change is real, it is cause by people, and it is going to be very problematic. It doesn't help that the science, while broadly in agreement, is still open ended. It is possible that the climate will still be exactly the same 100 or 200 years from now. Or it could be changed dramatically in 50. We just don't really know. Until we invent weather machines to manipulate the climate to our will, we'll just have to wait and see how to climate is going to be and adapt our society to it.

Ok.. now you went into fiction land here... the reality is that our impact on climate temperatures is negligible. Perhaps one degree of actual difference over where the climate would have us without the greenhouse gases artificially emitted. I mean, all it takes is 1 volcano blast and that trumps ALL human influence on climate for YEARS.

The ONLY constant thing about the climate is that it is ALWAYS CHANGING. The reality is that we can only predict the weather for about 7 days with any accuracy better then a coin flip, and yes... predicting the weather is similar to predicting climate since you can predict the weather in all micro-climates which would sum up to the global climate.

Now before we start talking about geo-engineering the planet, we should be 100% certain of precisely the impacts and influences that are influencing factors of the climate and to be able to predict these accurately out into the future before we can get some reality based climate models that might actually be able to predict the weather currently, nevermind 50 -100 years from now.

I've repeated a hundred times, but still nobody wants to talk about REAL pollution... not CO2, but the chemicals actually causing acid rain, or spewed out through industry, or ANY other issue that causes LEGITIMATE environmental damage... but no, the new devil is CO2... it's too bad that many can't make the connection that if we ban CO2 we're going to ban people form exhaling.

In the mean time the bigger issue is allocation of resources. I'd rather see a million dollars going to Pakistan than as a grant to some climatologist studying glacier melt. The real impact of global climate change isn't going to be felt in the US, but in the impoverished area of the world. Flooding in Pakistan and Bangladesh, desertification in the Sahel, these sort of things are real environmental crises we need to deal with. We're wasting our resources trying to stop the climate from changing.

Ya... let's go communist to solve 'global warming'... seriously though.
No matter WHAT sort of environmental crisis is going on, now it's 'global warmings' (re: people's) fault.
Listen, we are wasting our resources trying to stop the climate from changing... and I'm not opposed to sending funds to help out those in need, but let's be real hear, we're not sending funds to 'stop global warming' ... we'd be sending funds to help flood victims. Floods do happen, they've happened long before man's influence of the climate. Same with earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes and thunder storms...

Finally, to tie it back to the OP.. . why should it be necessary to sell the message that 'either we become green or blood will be shed in the name of the earth'?? As is being done with these greenpeace and environmentalist moves??

 

[bowerbird]

What about those of us who are skeptics for legitimate reasons?

Okay - I pwomise I won't blowed you up!!!

 

[bowerbird]

Re: No Pressure, cut your carbon!

Yes, Americans are just too dumb to understand the humor of the ad. That's the only plausible reason why anyone would think it's not fantastic.

You mean you DO do Irony? Okay then - where have you been hiding all the GOOD comedy?

 

[bowerbird]

Re: No Pressure, cut your carbon!

If we really want clean air with the proper proportions of CO2, we need to plug all those volcanoes....they emit more pollutants that all other sources combined.

Yes and there are mechanisms to mop up the volcanic CO2 - like trees - but Oooops! we seem to have cut most of those down. Pity - they would have done a good job too!!

Mind you - how do you propose "plugging" a volcano WITHOUT causing another Mt St Helens?

Read this if you dare

How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?

 

[R. Shackleferd]

Epic Green Fail 10:10



Disagree with environmentalists? Think again.

 

[UtahBill]

Re: No Pressure, cut your carbon!

Yes and there are mechanisms to mop up the volcanic CO2 - like trees - but Oooops! we seem to have cut most of those down. Pity - they would have done a good job too!!

Mind you - how do you propose "plugging" a volcano WITHOUT causing another Mt St Helens?

Read this if you dare

How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?

I was being facetious, of course. IMHO, human caused CO2 is too small a contribution to global warming to even consider. That being said, I am in favor of using less fossil fuels like coal and oil. I an also in favor of using more nuclear, and especially, more conservation.