Another liberal propaganda spectacular! (1 Viewer)

[alphamale]

http://www.climatecrisis.net/

Here we go again - check it out! :2razz:

 

[tecoyah]

Spectacular...well, No. Since Alpha neglected to comment in any way on the topic here...I will do so for him, as him:

These freakin whackjob envirofascists have made another movie about global warming. When will they ever learn that the science is Bogus, made up and stupid. Besides, Its a natural occurance and people have nothing to do with it. Its actually a good thing 'cause we can grow more crops when the temps warm up in the north, and there is no proof at all that its getting hotter anyway.

Plus the scientists have an agenda, and work for the envirofascists under the table.

 

[faithful_servant]

Spectacular...well, No. Since Alpha neglected to comment in any way on the topic here...I will do so for him, as him:

These freakin whackjob envirofascists have made another movie about global warming. When will they ever learn that the science is Bogus, made up and stupid. Besides, Its a natural occurance and people have nothing to do with it. Its actually a good thing 'cause we can grow more crops when the temps warm up in the north, and there is no proof at all that its getting hotter anyway.

Plus the scientists have an agenda, and work for the envirofascists under the table.

I like you. My guess is that you're a member of the Holy Church of Global Warming, but I still like your style.

tecoyah, can you tell me why there are no scientists describing the potential benefits of GW. The best evidence of the results of GW that we have is the Medievel Optimum and from every place that we have reocrds from, it was great. More food and shorter winters lead to more time to be spent on the more intellectual pursuits. I've even read that w/o the MO, the progress of civilization would have been substanially slowed. With this body of evidence that is showing some substantial benefits, why don't we hear about them?

 

[RightOfCenter]

So by your posts I'm guessing the people who posted prior to this are pro-pollution? Even if you don't agree with the science behind these statements, would it hurt you that much to shut off a light when you leave a room, buy a hybrid car next time your shopping, use public transportation or recycle? I'm conservative on a lot of issues but the future of the planet seems like one of those I'd rather be safe than sorry kind of things.

 

[faithful_servant]

So by your posts I'm guessing the people who posted prior to this are pro-pollution? Even if you don't agree with the science behind these statements, would it hurt you that much to shut off a light when you leave a room, buy a hybrid car next time your shopping, use public transportation or recycle? I'm conservative on a lot of issues but the future of the planet seems like one of those I'd rather be safe than sorry kind of things.

Absoluetly (although hybrids are scam - not nearly enough energy savings to offset the long-term cost of ownership). Doing everything we can to cut down on our waste of resources should be everyone's focus. Simply driving the speed limit instead of the 10-20 MPH over it that most people drive, will bump up your mileage by about 5 MPG from my experience. Buying and installing a solar water heater to assist your current water heater is another money-maker/resource saver.

 

[oldreliable67]

While we're at it, lets produce our own moonshine, er, ethanol to fuel or vehicles!

http://dogwoodenergy.com/

 

[alphamale]

Spectacular...well, No. Since Alpha neglected to comment in any way on the topic here...I will do so for him, as him:

These freakin whackjob envirofascists have made another movie about global warming. When will they ever learn that the science is Bogus, made up and stupid. Besides, Its a natural occurance and people have nothing to do with it. Its actually a good thing 'cause we can grow more crops when the temps warm up in the north, and there is no proof at all that its getting hotter anyway.

Plus the scientists have an agenda, and work for the envirofascists under the table.

Lilke the agitprop movie, Tecoyah's post speaks for itself! :2razz:

("science"???? :lol: )

 

[easyt65]

Water Power, boys and girls -- HHO! Check it out! 100 mile trip on 4 ounces of water!

http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2006/05/14/006645.html

 

[StillPhil]

Another liberal propaganda spectacular.

Those crazy scientists. Always using facts, years of experiments, rigorous testing, scientific scrutiny, drawing rational conclusions based on critical analyzing...FOR WHAT!?

So they can once again stifle our progress and stop us from doing what we want. Someone should tell those scientists that if they want us to agree with them, they should start spreading news that is popular! News that shows something positive!

That's the thing that irks me about these liberals! You always hear wack-job "liberal" scientists talk about the things we're doing wrong. They're always conducting intensive studies on the cause and effect ("theories"--not truth in anyway, shape, or form) of human action that invariably hurt the planet. Then they spin the results in favor of a liberal agenda, which always makes us humans look bad (which doesnt Support the Troops). Their overzealous claims only support the terrorists, spreading unsubstanciated fear about Global Warming (which I choose not to believe in-inspite of overwhelming evidence...but so what, I dont believe it-so it isnt so). We all know why they spread these lies about the environment. Because they hate George W. Bush!

Why don't they ever write scientific journals about what we do Right??!! Like my daily recycling efforts...no, wait, I dont recycle regularly. That's someone else's job. Or the last time I planted a tree...no, wait, I've never planted a tree. That's God's job. These liberal-scientists only say these things to further their own liberal agenda. Which I'm positive has something to do with socialism, which is evil.

 

[alphamale]

Those crazy scientists. Always using facts, years of experiments, rigorous testing, scientific scrutiny, drawing rational conclusions based on critical analyzing...FOR WHAT!?

So they can once again stifle our progress and stop us from doing what we want. Someone should tell those scientists that if they want us to agree with them, they should start spreading news that is popular! News that shows something positive!

That's the thing that irks me about these liberals! You always hear wack-job "liberal" scientists talk about the things we're doing wrong. They're always conducting intensive studies on the cause and effect ("theories"--not truth in anyway, shape, or form) of human action that invariably hurt the planet. Then they spin the results in favor of a liberal agenda, which always makes us humans look bad (which doesnt Support the Troops). Their overzealous claims only support the terrorists, spreading unsubstanciated fear about Global Warming (which I choose not to believe in-inspite of overwhelming evidence...but so what, I dont believe it-so it isnt so). We all know why they spread these lies about the environment. Because they hate George W. Bush!

Why don't they ever write scientific journals about what we do Right??!! Like my daily recycling efforts...no, wait, I dont recycle regularly. That's someone else's job. Or the last time I planted a tree...no, wait, I've never planted a tree. That's God's job. These liberal-scientists only say these things to further their own liberal agenda. Which I'm positive has something to do with socialism, which is evil.

Uh, actually, what the scientists involved in the global warming scare are using is correlations, limited timelines, "votes", and rigged simulations, all for the delectation of paranoid idiots. But papers in scientific journals, even drawing erroneous conclusions, aren't dramatic and emotional enough to rile up pot smoking ecology freaks - they need cool films with hurricanes actually spewing forth from smokestacks! :lol: Now I'm thinking that film was made by the energy industry to make ecoloons look bad, but that of course would be like carrying coals to Newcastle! :mrgreen:

 

[tecoyah]

Uh, actually, what the scientists involved in the global warming scare are using is correlations, limited timelines, "votes", and rigged simulations, all for the delectation of paranoid idiots. But papers in scientific journals, even drawing erroneous conclusions, aren't dramatic and emotional enough to rile up pot smoking ecology freaks - they need cool films with hurricanes actually spewing forth from smokestacks! :lol: Now I'm thinking that film was made by the energy industry to make ecoloons look bad, but that of course would be like carrying coals to Newcastle! :mrgreen:

There is enough evidence in my opinion, to place Climate change in the realm of reality. Though I am sure much Hype has been used to highlight the worst case scenarios that could come about because of it, this should not make us ignore the reality, nor should it allow for complacancy with regard to possible resulting impact on all of us. For those who still see no correlation between CO2 and the mean global temperature, I will provide the inevitable graph for you to ignore, and hope you manage to remove your head from the sand long enough to see the pretty colors. I am not saying Humans have caused this increase alone, but rather that the evidence does point to a contribution to it from our industrialization. Regardless, we cannot stop it from continuing in the short term future.....so we might as well adapt as we can.

Graph: Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration (ppmv) and temperature change (°C) observed during the past 160 thousand years and predicted during the next 10 thousand years. Historical carbon dioxide data was collected from Antarctic ice cores; temperature changes through time are relative to the present temperature. Graph adapted from the Whitehouse Initiative on Global Climate Change.

 

[StillPhil]

Uh, actually, what the scientists involved in the global warming scare are using is correlations, limited timelines, "votes", and rigged simulations, all for the delectation of paranoid idiots.

Uh, actually, no. Dont be ridiculous. Thats like saying the AIDS crisis and prevention programs were drummed up by a think-tank for the sole purpose of turning a profit, having nothing to do with science dedicated to protecting people and finding cures. But hey...if you wanna shoot yourself in the foot, by all means.

But papers in scientific journals, even drawing erroneous conclusions, aren't dramatic and emotional enough to rile up pot smoking ecology freaks - they need cool films with hurricanes actually spewing forth from smokestacks! :lol: Now I'm thinking that film was made by the energy industry to make ecoloons look bad, but that of course would be like carrying coals to Newcastle! :mrgreen:

What on Earth are you talking about? Are you saying scientists draw conclusions because, like children, they want attention and to feel cool in front of pot smokers? What irrational crap.

 

[StillPhil]

There is enough evidence in my opinion, to place Climate change in the realm of reality. Though I am sure much Hype has been used to highlight the worst case scenarios that could come about because of it, this should not make us ignore the reality, nor should it allow for complacancy with regard to possible resulting impact on all of us. For those who still see no correlation between CO2 and the mean global temperature, I will provide the inevitable graph for you to ignore, and hope you manage to remove your head from the sand long enough to see the pretty colors. I am not saying Humans have caused this increase alone, but rather that the evidence does point to a contribution to it from our industrialization. Regardless, we cannot stop it from continuing in the short term future.....so we might as well adapt as we can.

Good post.

 

[BigDog]

I like you. My guess is that you're a member of the Holy Church of Global Warming, but I still like your style.

tecoyah, can you tell me why there are no scientists describing the potential benefits of GW. The best evidence of the results of GW that we have is the Medievel Optimum and from every place that we have reocrds from, it was great. More food and shorter winters lead to more time to be spent on the more intellectual pursuits. I've even read that w/o the MO, the progress of civilization would have been substanially slowed. With this body of evidence that is showing some substantial benefits, why don't we hear about them?

Please show us this evidence. I suspect there are more problems with it than with those trying to lessen GW. But, I would be interested to see it, peer reviewed versions of course.

 

[alphamale]

For those who still see no correlation between CO2 and the mean global temperature, I will provide the inevitable graph for you to ignore, and hope you manage to remove your head from the sand long enough to see the pretty colors.

May I make a suggestion to you? De-hypnotize yourself from the pretty colors that have turned you into an uncritical eco-robot, and take a good course in probability and statistics. There, not long after page 1 in your textbook, you will learn the fundamental law correlation does not imply causation. After you read that law, absorb it, suck it in, memorize it, let it become part of how you analyze the world, you will realize that among alternative explanation to explain the correlation are

- Rising temperatures may cause increased CO2, rather than the reverse, or

- Elevated temp and CO2 are correlated because they are both caused by some other, unknown factor.

One of the my stat teacher's favorite anecdotes in this regard was that someone found a strong correlation for years between the cougar population in the southwest, and solar activity in the sun. Wouldn't it be far-fetched to say solar activity affected the cougar population? Wouldn't it be even sillier to say the cougar population caused solar activity? But that, in essence, is exactly what you are doing. Now, once more (how many times do I have to say this?)

CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION!

 

[BigDog]

May I make a suggestion to you? De-hypnotize yourself from the pretty colors that have turned you into an uncritical eco-robot, and take a good course in probability and statistics. There, not long after page 1 in your textbook, you will learn the fundamental law correlation does not imply causation. After you read that law, absorb it, suck it in, memorize it, let it become part of how you analyze the world, you will realize that among alternative explanation to explain the correlation are

- Rising temperatures may cause increased CO2, rather than the reverse, or

- Elevated temp and CO2 are correlated because they are both caused by some other, unknown factor.

One of the my stat teacher's favorite anecdotes in this regard was that someone found a strong correlation for years between the cougar population in the southwest, and solar activity in the sun. Wouldn't it be far-fetched to say solar activity affected the cougar population? Wouldn't it be even sillier to say the cougar population caused solar activity? But that, in essence, is exactly what you are doing. Now, once more (how many times do I have to say this?)

CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION!

There is always a problem with absolutes. Allow me to present a few other views:

Here are selected contributions from a discussion, on the EDSTAT list, about the phrase "correlation does not imply causation:"

I opined "correlation is necessary but not sufficient for establishing a causal relationship." Jim opined "depending on precisely what Karl means by "correlation is necessary," I'd have to disagree strongly.

More nearly precisely what I mean follows, but is long.

First, let me give a short answer to the question "When does correlation imply causation?" The short answer is: When the data from which the correlation was computed were obtained by experimental means with appropriate care to avoid confounding and other threats to the internal validity of the experiment.

My long answer will start with a distinction between correlation as a statistical technique and "correlational" (nonexperimental) designs as a way to gather data.

http://core.ecu.edu/psyc/wuenschk/StatHelp/Correlation-Causation.htm

His main point, I think, was that correlation does not mean causation. This is true! And his point would be well taken if I had been claiming that correlation meant causation. What I was saying was that correlation in agreement with an established physical fact is more than mere correlation.

http://www.politicalcortex.com/story/2006/1/15/20445/1991

CONTEXT
When noting a claim in your source, consider the rhetorical role of the claim within the author's larger argument-- is it a main point or a minor one, is it a qualification, a concession, or a framing device not part of the main argument? Careful reading can help you avoid mistakes of this kind:

Original by Author X: "It is true we cannot conclude that one event causes another simply because the second follows the first. Nor can statistical correlation ever prove causation. Yet, few serious and independent researches doubt that air pollution is a causal factor in global warming."

Misleading use Author X: "Author X make the point that 'we cannot conclude that one event causes another simply because of chronology . . . Nor can statistical correlation ever prove causation.' Is it any surprise, then, that I am suspicious of statistical and scientific arguments about global warming?"

Author X does not make this point at all. Author X merely concedes a number of points which hold less importance for him/her than does the final sentence, which is the intended point. Lack of attention to context, in this way, can inadvertently lead to a serious misrepresentation of an author's claims.

http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/courses/hist100.06/quotexcer.html

The point is while you are correct in your loud claim, you really miss the points being made concerning GW. Like in the last example here, you speak out of context of the debate. Doing so is misleading and inaccurate.

 

[tecoyah]

I like you. My guess is that you're a member of the Holy Church of Global Warming, but I still like your style.

tecoyah, can you tell me why there are no scientists describing the potential benefits of GW. The best evidence of the results of GW that we have is the Medievel Optimum and from every place that we have reocrds from, it was great. More food and shorter winters lead to more time to be spent on the more intellectual pursuits. I've even read that w/o the MO, the progress of civilization would have been substanially slowed. With this body of evidence that is showing some substantial benefits, why don't we hear about them?

Actually....we do hear about the benefits of increased warming of the Earth....though its something we must search out. I attribute this to the realities of Media in the United States, and the old Addage that Death Sells. Obvious to science are the likely benefits to isolated areas as a result of temperature increase.....ask any one living in Siberia. The focus on the Negative may very well be misguided, but as one considers the likely result of less rainfall along the equatorial regions (one example, up for debate), it becomes clear many will suffer as climate changes.
The point is more one of gaining attention in my opinion, as one aspect of all science is to explain what is seen. Should they fail to make the public aware, they are not doing a service to Humanity as a whole, which is part of the reasoning for science in the first place.

 

[tecoyah]

May I make a suggestion to you? De-hypnotize yourself from the pretty colors that have turned you into an uncritical eco-robot, and take a good course in probability and statistics. There, not long after page 1 in your textbook, you will learn the fundamental law correlation does not imply causation. After you read that law, absorb it, suck it in, memorize it, let it become part of how you analyze the world, you will realize that among alternative explanation to explain the correlation are


CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION!

Though you do try to make me seem a fool Alpha (as is your standard approach to debate), you fail to accomplish much by doing so. The sarcastic attempts to seem superior in knowledge are somewhat....distracting, but definately not condusive to any viable debate. As for the robotic Eco comment, it seems unworthy of reply considering my post history in this forum. I am well aware of statistics, and the theories of causation, and have used them on many occasions in my study of this issue, in fact they have been invaluable when comparing emmisions with trends in global mean temperature.
Rather than attempting to point out what you are, I would prefer a discussion of the actual Data accumulated pertaining to Climate Change, and its implications for Humankind in the future. If indeed, you would like to discuss these data, and refrain from your usual attacking nature, perhaps we can actually accomplish something here.

Are You Game?

 

[alphamale]

Though you do try to make me seem a fool Alpha (as is your standard approach to debate), you fail to accomplish much by doing so. The sarcastic attempts to seem superior in knowledge are somewhat....distracting, but definately not condusive to any viable debate. As for the robotic Eco comment, it seems unworthy of reply considering my post history in this forum. I am well aware of statistics, and the theories of causation, and have used them on many occasions in my study of this issue, in fact they have been invaluable when comparing emmisions with trends in global mean temperature.
Rather than attempting to point out what you are, I would prefer a discussion of the actual Data accumulated pertaining to Climate Change, and its implications for Humankind in the future. If indeed, you would like to discuss these data, and refrain from your usual attacking nature, perhaps we can actually accomplish something here.

Are You Game?

"I will provide the inevitable graph for you to ignore, and hope you manage to remove your head from the sand long enough to see the pretty colors."

Let's see .... is the above sarcasm? You know that it is, and I was responding in kind, but my statement about correlation stands - it's amazing to me how many people are sucked in by the correlation graphs, and appear to think no further about the issue than that.

 

[tecoyah]

"I will provide the inevitable graph for you to ignore, and hope you manage to remove your head from the sand long enough to see the pretty colors."

Let's see .... is the above sarcasm? You know that it is, and I was responding in kind, but my statement about correlation stands - it's amazing to me how many people are sucked in by the correlation graphs, and appear to think no further about the issue than that.

Appearance then, in this case is misleading, as I have thought for some time on this issue. I have also stated on numerous occasions in this forum that Human impact is likely minimal , but does have some effect on Global Climate change. The correlation between CO2 increase and industialization is relatively clear. The impact of said Carbon Dioxide increases on Global Climate are not so clear as of yet. My stance is simply that Climate change is occuring, and should be addressed, whether thru emission controls or preperation is undecided, and up for debate in the community of those who care to pay attention. Thus the "Head in the Sand" statement.
Very few still deny the change is real, and those individuals need not be concerned with the debate, as they are irrelevant to it. Instead this debate should involve people who wish to minimize the likely impact these changes will have on the Human Population, as well as the Flora and Fauna of this planet. To Ignore the future is to be unprepared, and inevitably to suffer for the foly of ignorance. I would hope in this at least....we can agree.

 

[alphamale]

Appearance then, in this case is misleading, as I have thought for some time on this issue. I have also stated on numerous occasions in this forum that Human impact is likely minimal , but does have some effect on Global Climate change. The correlation between CO2 increase and industialization is relatively clear. The impact of said Carbon Dioxide increases on Global Climate are not so clear as of yet. My stance is simply that Climate change is occuring, and should be addressed, whether thru emission controls or preperation is undecided, and up for debate in the community of those who care to pay attention. Thus the "Head in the Sand" statement.
Very few still deny the change is real, and those individuals need not be concerned with the debate, as they are irrelevant to it. Instead this debate should involve people who wish to minimize the likely impact these changes will have on the Human Population, as well as the Flora and Fauna of this planet. To Ignore the future is to be unprepared, and inevitably to suffer for the foly of ignorance. I would hope in this at least....we can agree.

I am not going to support the remedies of Kyoto, with it's drastic consequences, or anything like it, until I can be shown that the cure (including millions of people uemployed, with all that that implies) is not worse than the disease (the contribution of fossil fuel burning, which may be lost in the noise compared to other causes).

 

[tecoyah]

I am not going to support the remedies of Kyoto, with it's drastic consequences, or anything like it, until I can be shown that the cure (including millions of people uemployed, with all that that implies) is not worse than the disease (the contribution of fossil fuel burning, which may be lost in the noise compared to other causes).

I dont see ktoto coming into this debate, as it has no bearing. The Kyoto protocals would do virtually nothing to combat the change in climate. We can agree not to bother with it any further. The changes likely in the future cannot be stopped by anythin one nation decides to do, nor by half the world destroying its collective economy by abandoning fossil fuels.
The reality of climate change requires more commitment than we are capable of at this point as a world population....thus we must begin discussing the way we adapt, rather than the cause.



*edit*....uh....nevermind, seems your actions have caught up with you....poor sap

 

[tryreading]

I'm conservative on a lot of issues but the future of the planet seems like one of those I'd rather be safe than sorry kind of things.

I think you are right, this is way too important an issue for the 'maybe it isn't true you tree hugging liberal' approach, and we should definitely err on the side of life on this planet.

 

[faithful_servant]

Actually....we do hear about the benefits of increased warming of the Earth....though its something we must search out. I attribute this to the realities of Media in the United States, and the old Addage that Death Sells. Obvious to science are the likely benefits to isolated areas as a result of temperature increase.....ask any one living in Siberia. The focus on the Negative may very well be misguided, but as one considers the likely result of less rainfall along the equatorial regions (one example, up for debate), it becomes clear many will suffer as climate changes.
The point is more one of gaining attention in my opinion, as one aspect of all science is to explain what is seen. Should they fail to make the public aware, they are not doing a service to Humanity as a whole, which is part of the reasoning for science in the first place.

Please show me one report that puts even 1/4 the emphasis on the good as on the bad. I'd love to see it.
The science behind GW is skewed by the need to sustain funding, this is what drives the perpetual negativity of the GW crowd. Without a disaster to prevent, there is no need of billions of dollars of research money. This would mean that there would be a whole lot more Jr. High School science and math teachers and a whole lot less eco-scientists. If I saw as much emphasis on the bad as I do on the good, I'd be less skeptical, but with the overwhelming amount of doom and gloom from the GW, I have to be skeptical of thier motivation.
The Medieval Optimum was a time of great prosperity for Europe and Asia, it did have the effect of creating an extended drought in Meso-America, but outside of that, was overwhelmingly positive. It was not the global disaster that is being promoted as the eventual outcome of GW.

 

[tecoyah]

Please show me one report that puts even 1/4 the emphasis on the good as on the bad. I'd love to see it.
The science behind GW is skewed by the need to sustain funding, this is what drives the perpetual negativity of the GW crowd. Without a disaster to prevent, there is no need of billions of dollars of research money. This would mean that there would be a whole lot more Jr. High School science and math teachers and a whole lot less eco-scientists. If I saw as much emphasis on the bad as I do on the good, I'd be less skeptical, but with the overwhelming amount of doom and gloom from the GW, I have to be skeptical of thier motivation.
The Medieval Optimum was a time of great prosperity for Europe and Asia, it did have the effect of creating an extended drought in Meso-America, but outside of that, was overwhelmingly positive. It was not the global disaster that is being promoted as the eventual outcome of GW.

I dont suppose you have considered the possibility that more attention is directed towards the negative because there is simply more of it? This, Combined with the medias taste for blood would make your statement rather naive. Conspiracy theory is usually reserved for Liberal minded fear mongers....this is below you I would hope. I have seen papers written by well known scientists, which detail possible benefits of a warming trend in climate. They really are not very difficult to find if you decide to look.
My understanding to date is that these benefits will be regional, and will likely be far outwieghed by the damage done as a result of atmospheric changes. To deny these likely results is to walk blindfolded into the dark alley of disaster. As I have stated, those that deny the well established reality of climate change need not worry about it, and waste breath by trying to tell those who actually study this phenomenon, it does not exist.