• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How much proof do the global warming deniers need?

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
79,360
Reaction score
35,411
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
By all means prove it.

How do you prove that something wasn't used? Post a link to every wikipedia article on the subject?

Can you find any page where it was used?
 

bowerbird

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
1,431
Reaction score
563
Location
australia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
By all means prove it.

I just read the bottom of the page - said it all really. See when they use an article it is listed at the bottom of the page this one just says

File links
The following pages on the English Wikipedia link to this file (pages on other projects are not listed):

* User talk:Isonomia
* Talk:Global warming/Archive 35
* User:Eniteris
* Talk:Global warming/Archive 37
* User:Kratanuva66/Sandbox

The onlly discussion was a gripe about "censorship" from people who do not know cherry picked data from an apple orchard. Look that graph spanned 6 years only - If you look at the graphs I posted you will see that CO2 and temperature are not in complete lockstep - so they seem to have taken a slice of the curve that did not show close correlation and tried to use that to falisfy data.

Sorry does not fly
 

Barbbtx

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
8,467
Reaction score
1,993
Location
W'Ford TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
"Journo" is an Australianism like bikkie for biscuit. But if you think there is money to be made off of AGW - and an awful lot of what I have seen so far is not fact but conjecture with a plethora of "maybes" and could bes and perhapses - but you have to ask yourself "Is there a vested interest in keeping the CO2 pumping out into the atmosphere?

Why not just follow the money and see who has a vested interest in man made global warming and cap and trade.


Jun 25, 2010 ... How would Fannie Mae obtain the carbon credits from American homes? ... Look who's advising Obama! Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac execs ...
Disgraced Fannie Mae deep in carbon scheme
<http://view.picapp.com/pictures.photo/news/house-holds-hearing/image/2982414?term=franklin+raines>
With the Obama administration pushing for cap-and-trade legislation, former Clinton and Obama adviser Franklin Raines has positioned the government-sponsored mortgage giant Fannie Mae to make millions by selling carbon credits from American homes.
Two patents applied for by Raines as one of several "co-inventors" – Nos. 6904336 and 7133750 – create a "method for identifying, quantifying, and aggregating reductions in residential emissions into a tradable commodity." The patents are identically titled "System and Method for Residential Emissions Trading."
Be the first to see the full documentation of how your life could be changed by climate-related laws, taxes and regulations, in "Climategate" <http://superstore.wnd.com/store/item.asp?DEPARTMENT_ID=6&SUBDEPARTMENT_ID=20&ITEM_ID=3672>
The idea appears to be for Fannie Mae to create "Collateralized Carbon Obligations", by utilizing a methodology similar to its system for combining individual home loans into Collateralized Loan Obligations.
The patents give Fannie Mae the methods for identifying and measuring energy savings in homes that can be packaged and sold to carbon polluters as credits on a carbon exchange
 

OscarB63

Farts in Elevators
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 7, 2010
Messages
26,526
Reaction score
9,462
Location
Alabama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Why not just follow the money and see who has a vested interest in man made global warming and cap and trade.

quite simple, who stands to gain the most from man-made GW? why, surprise, surprise, the very scientists who are telling us there is a concensus. the guys who derive their funding by conducting research on the problem. And the politicians who seem to want to redistribute wealth. hmmmmm.
 

Bodhisattva

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
98,828
Reaction score
20,937
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
quite simple, who stands to gain the most from man-made GW? why, surprise, surprise, the very scientists who are telling us there is a concensus. the guys who derive their funding by conducting research on the problem. And the politicians who seem to want to redistribute wealth. hmmmmm.

REdistribute? I must have missed the day that the distributed it in the first place...
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
79,360
Reaction score
35,411
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Why not just follow the money and see who has a vested interest in man made global warming and cap and trade.


Jun 25, 2010 ... How would Fannie Mae obtain the carbon credits from American homes? ... Look who's advising Obama! Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac execs ...
Disgraced Fannie Mae deep in carbon scheme
<http://view.picapp.com/pictures.photo/news/house-holds-hearing/image/2982414?term=franklin+raines>
With the Obama administration pushing for cap-and-trade legislation, former Clinton and Obama adviser Franklin Raines has positioned the government-sponsored mortgage giant Fannie Mae to make millions by selling carbon credits from American homes.
Two patents applied for by Raines as one of several "co-inventors" – Nos. 6904336 and 7133750 – create a "method for identifying, quantifying, and aggregating reductions in residential emissions into a tradable commodity." The patents are identically titled "System and Method for Residential Emissions Trading."
Be the first to see the full documentation of how your life could be changed by climate-related laws, taxes and regulations, in "Climategate" <http://superstore.wnd.com/store/item.asp?DEPARTMENT_ID=6&SUBDEPARTMENT_ID=20&ITEM_ID=3672>
The idea appears to be for Fannie Mae to create "Collateralized Carbon Obligations", by utilizing a methodology similar to its system for combining individual home loans into Collateralized Loan Obligations.
The patents give Fannie Mae the methods for identifying and measuring energy savings in homes that can be packaged and sold to carbon polluters as credits on a carbon exchange

How about we follow the money for the opposition? Who stands to benefit from keeping the status quo to the tune of billions of dollars? Oil companies who fund "think tanks" like the Heartland Institute who then fund skeptic "scientists" to give speeches and talk to congress and do very little actual research. Gee, how might they stand to gain from clouding the issue on carbon dioxide and global warming?

Or I have a better plan. Follow the science. All else is misdirection.
 

Demon of Light

Bohemian Revolutionary
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
5,095
Reaction score
1,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I just read the bottom of the page - said it all really. See when they use an article it is listed at the bottom of the page this one just says

Did I not say I have edited Wikipedia myself? I am pretty sure I did. Like I said in my first response, the point was plain and simply to point out that while you attack one side for cherry-picking you do it yourself i.e. stopping before a cooling trend. That the data everyone cites showing still more increases in temperature since 1998 is actually contradicted by other data showing a flattened period that has been consistently lower than the 1998 level is even better.

How do you prove that something wasn't used?

:roll: For one, as you can see it is very easy to prove whether something was used, but more importantly I wasn't asking for that much to be proved because I saw that myself before anyone said anything. Rather I was asking for proof that it was cherry-picked data.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
79,360
Reaction score
35,411
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Did I not say I have edited Wikipedia myself? I am pretty sure I did. Like I said in my first response, the point was plain and simply to point out that while you attack one side for cherry-picking you do it yourself i.e. stopping before a cooling trend. That the data everyone cites showing still more increases in temperature since 1998 is actually contradicted by other data showing a flattened period that has been consistently lower than the 1998 level is even better.



:roll: For one, as you can see it is very easy to prove whether something was used, but more importantly I wasn't asking for that much to be proved because I saw that myself before anyone said anything. Rather I was asking for proof that it was cherry-picked data.

What cooling trend are you talking about? The one created by the single-year dip we had in 2008, which promptly reversed in 2009? That cooling "trend?" Flattening is not cooling. The 2000's were hotter than the 90s. The 90s were hotter than the 80s. The 80s were hotter than the 70s. 2010 is looking to be the hottest year on record. Where are you getting this idea that there's a cooling trend?

1998 combined a peak in solar activity with an abnormally warm El Nino cycle, so it's actually a bit of an outlier, temperature-wise. You're using THAT to try and establish your cooling trend? Pretty typical.
 
Last edited:

Barbbtx

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
8,467
Reaction score
1,993
Location
W'Ford TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
How about we follow the money for the opposition? Who stands to benefit from keeping the status quo to the tune of billions of dollars? Oil companies who fund "think tanks" like the Heartland Institute who then fund skeptic "scientists" to give speeches and talk to congress and do very little actual research. Gee, how might they stand to gain from clouding the issue on carbon dioxide and global warming?

Or I have a better plan. Follow the science. All else is misdirection.

Oil companies will benefit from cap and trade too.
If we all of sudden passed bills that would make it unconstitutional to put any form of cap and trade, selling of carbon credits, etc. into law, I bet our politicians would lose interest in proving man made global warming as fact.
We can do things to cut pollution. We don't need to collapse our economy and life styles doing it.
 

bowerbird

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
1,431
Reaction score
563
Location
australia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Oil companies will benefit from cap and trade too.
If we all of sudden passed bills that would make it unconstitutional to put any form of cap and trade, selling of carbon credits, etc. into law, I bet our politicians would lose interest in proving man made global warming as fact.
We can do things to cut pollution. We don't need to collapse our economy and life styles doing it.

We don't need to collapse economies - and do you really really really think that THAT is what ANY politician would want? I mean really??
 

Technocratic

Active member
Joined
Sep 7, 2010
Messages
359
Reaction score
103
Location
Soviet Technate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
There is no proof that those things cause global. If anything was to cause man made global warming I would think it would be the hundreds and thousands of large cities with a lack of trees, lots of concrete and asphalt acting as heat sinks and the huge sky scrappers clumped together acting as artificial hills altering ground temperatures and diverting low air currents that would cause man made global warming. But I guess you religious extremist who believe in the man made global warming fairy tale are all convinced that the earth only started warming when humans starting driving SUVs instead of as a a result naturally occurring causes.

It is pretty well-established science that greehoues gases produced by the burning of fossile fuels have properties that can influence climate. This is empirically verifiable regarding water vapour, CO2, etc.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
79,360
Reaction score
35,411
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
We don't need to collapse economies - and do you really really really think that THAT is what ANY politician would want? I mean really??

Or any "warmer," for that matter. It's just easier for guys like him to make up ridiculous positions to attack, rather than address anything that actual scientists are actually saying.
 

theunbubba

Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
96
Reaction score
20
Location
East Tennessee, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Here's my take on the AGW alarmist crap.
The latest revisions to the glacial melt estimate are that it will take 350 years, instead of 35. This is long enough to build and paint a house by the beach, and watch the paint dry and eventually flake off, before watching the structure rot to the ground before the rising ocean covers the first layer of block in the foundation.

350 years ago the United States didn't exist. There are only four governments in the entire world that are still here from back then. In this time almost the entire settlement of the North and South American and the Australian continents has occurred.
The first thoughts of socialism were not even dreamt by Marx and Ingels. The Soviet Union has come and gone. The nations of most of the world had never thought that the automobile and the airplane would even exist.
Krakatoa was still just a sleepy spot on a map.
France and Spain and England were vieing for supremacy of the oceans with sailing ships.

People will simply slowly move away from the advancing rise of the oceans at a pace that a snail wouldn't notice.
The alarmism is astounding in it's complete detachment from the reality of the situation.
And it hasn't even been proven that mankind has really caused any of it.
Not to mention the arrogance of thinking that there will be stable enough human governments to take any signifigant action in the first place.
And yet I am to destroy my way of life and my nations economy for what is mostly a grab for power by people bent on redistributing my money to somebody that won't get off their ass and earn their own.
Over my dead body!
 
Last edited:

Compatibilist

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2010
Messages
775
Reaction score
270
Location
Bunkered in 5 klicks from city hall
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Here's my take on the AGW alarmist crap.
The latest revisions to the glacial melt estimate are that it will take 350 years, instead of 35. This is long enough to build and paint a house by the beach, and watch the paint dry and eventually flake off, before watching the structure rot to the ground before the rising ocean covers the first layer of block in the foundation.

350 years ago the United States didn't exist. There are only four governments in the entire world that are still here from back then. In this time almost the entire settlement of the North and South American and the Australian continents has occurred.
The first thoughts of socialism were not even dreamt by Marx and Ingels. The Soviet Union has come and gone. The nations of most of the world had never thought that the automobile and the airplane would even exist.
Krakatoa was still just a sleepy spot on a map.
France and Spain and England were vieing for supremacy of the oceans with sailing ships.

People will simply slowly move away from the advancing rise of the oceans at a pace that a snail wouldn't notice.
The alarmism is astounding in it's complete detachment from the reality of the situation.
And it hasn't even been proven that mankind has really caused any of it.
Not to mention the arrogance of thinking that there will be stable enough human governments to take any signifigant action in the first place.
And yet I am to destroy my way of life and my nations economy for what is mostly a grab for power by people bent on redistributing my money to somebody that won't get off their ass and earn their own.
Over my dead body!

:bravo: :good_job: :dito:
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
79,360
Reaction score
35,411
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Since we're reviving threads and cheerleading eachother for spouting standard, unsupported talking points, I guess I'll respond.

Here's my take on the AGW alarmist crap.
The latest revisions to the glacial melt estimate are that it will take 350 years, instead of 35.

The rest was just flak so I edited it out. Nobody ever calculated that the Greenland ice sheet would melt in 35 years. It wasn't a revision, it was a correction. Somebody made a typo, basically.

Also, ocean levels rising isn't the only danger of a warming planet. (regardless of the source of the warming)
 

OscarB63

Farts in Elevators
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 7, 2010
Messages
26,526
Reaction score
9,462
Location
Alabama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Since we're reviving threads and cheerleading eachother for spouting standard, unsupported talking points, I guess I'll respond.



The rest was just flak so I edited it out. Nobody ever calculated that the Greenland ice sheet would melt in 35 years. It wasn't a revision, it was a correction. Somebody made a typo, basically.

Also, ocean levels rising isn't the only danger of a warming planet. (regardless of the source of the warming)


funny how when AGWers **** something up, it's a typo that needs "correction" but when a denier ****s something up they are a liar. :shrug:
 

theunbubba

Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
96
Reaction score
20
Location
East Tennessee, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Since we're reviving threads and cheerleading eachother for spouting standard, unsupported talking points, I guess I'll respond.



The rest was just flak so I edited it out. Nobody ever calculated that the Greenland ice sheet would melt in 35 years. It wasn't a revision, it was a correction. Somebody made a typo, basically.

Also, ocean levels rising isn't the only danger of a warming planet. (regardless of the source of the warming)

In other words you can't rebut anything in my post but you will take a stab at deflection from my points. Typical lib.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
79,360
Reaction score
35,411
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
funny how when AGWers **** something up, it's a typo that needs "correction" but when a denier ****s something up they are a liar. :shrug:

They're a liar when they continue to press with disproven information.

In other words you can't rebut anything in my post but you will take a stab at deflection from my points. Typical lib.

There was nothing of substance in the rest of the post. Standard talking points and your own personal opinion. What, exactly, is there to rebut?
 

Compatibilist

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2010
Messages
775
Reaction score
270
Location
Bunkered in 5 klicks from city hall
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The 20th century warming of 1-1.4°F is within the +/- 5°F range of the past 3,000 years.

Arthur B. Robinson, PhD, et al., "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide," Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Fall 2007

A 2003 study by researchers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics shows temperatures from 1000-1100 AD (before fossil fuel use) that are comparable to those from 1900-1990

Willie Soon, PhD, and Sallie Baliunas, PhD, "Proxy Climactic and Environmental Changes of the Past 1000 Years," Climate Research, 2003
Anders Moberg, PhD, et al., "Highly Variable Northern Hemisphere Temperatures Reconstructed From Low and High Resolution Proxy Data," Nature, Feb. 2005



Rising CO2 levels are a result of global warming, not a cause of it. As temperatures increase, CO2 is released from "carbon sinks" such as the oceans or the Arctic tundra Measurements of ice core samples show that over the last four climactic cycles (past 240,000 years) periods of global warming preceded global increases in CO2

Timothy Ball, PhD, "Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?," www.canadafreepress.com, Feb. 5, 2007
Nicholas Caillon, PhD, and Jeffrey P. Severinghaus, PhD, et al., "Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III," Science, Mar. 14, 2003


Human releases of CO2 cannot cause climate change as any increases in CO2 are eventually balanced by nature. CO2 gets absorbed by oceans, forests, and other "carbon sinks" that increase their biological activity to absorb excess CO2 from the atmosphere. 50% of the CO2 released by the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities, has already been absorbed.

US Senate Minority Environment and Public Works Committee, "US Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007," epw.senate.go, Dec. 20, 2007

Global warming and cooling are caused by fluctuations in the sun's heat (solar forcing), not by the minor greenhouse effect of human-produced gases such as CO2 and methane (CH4).Between 1900 and 2000 solar irradiance increased .19%
This increase correlates with the rise in surface temperatures in the US.

Willie Soon, PhD, "Implications of the Secondary Role of Carbon Dioxide and Methane Forcing in Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future,” Physical Geography, 2007
Arthur B. Robinson, PhD, et al., "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide," Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Fall 2007




Due to the inherent unpredictability of climate systems it is impossible to accurately use models to determine future weather. Climate models have been unable to simulate major known features of past climate (such as the ice ages or the very warm climates of the Miocene, Eocene, and Cretaceous periods. If models cannot replicate past climate changes they should not be trusted to predict future climate changes.

Richard S. Lindzen, PhD, "Testimony of Richard S. Lindzen Before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee," www-eaps.mit.edu, May 2, 2001

Rising temperatures are caused primarily by water vapor, the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, not by CO2. Water vapor concentrations in the atmosphere are driven by natural storm systems and ocean currents. According to a Mar. 5, 2010 study by researchers at NOAA, water vapor in the stratosphere was responsible for increasing the rate of warming during the 1990s by 30%.

Susan Solomon, PhD, et al., "Contributions of Stratospheric Water Vapor to Decadal Changes in the Rate of Global Warming," Science, Mar. 5, 2010
William Gray, PhD, US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Hearing statement, "The Role of Science in Environmental Policy-Making," epw.senate.go, Sep. 28, 2005




The increased hurricane activity over the recent past decade including hurricane Katrina, is not the result of human-induced climate change; it is the result of cyclical tropical cyclone patterns, driven primarily by natural ocean currents, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) testimony in the US Senate on Sep. 20, 2005

Max Mayfield, PhD, "Oversight Hearing on the Lifesaving Role of Accurate Hurricane Prediction," US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation Subcommittee on Disaster Prevention and Prediction, Sep. 20, 2005


Deep ocean currents cause climate warming and cooling in long term cycles. The minor greenhouse effect of human produced CO2 pales in comparison. Global cooling from 1940 to the 1970s, and warming from the 1970s to 2008, coincided with fluctuations in ocean currents and cloud cover driven by the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) - a naturally occuring rearrangement in atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns.

William Gray, PhD, "MIT Professor's Climate Change Op-Ed Proven False," Global Warming Facts: What's New, Apr. 7, 2010
Roy W. Spencer, PhD, "Global Warming as a Natural Respose to Cloud Changes Associated with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)," Roy Spencer, Ph. D., Oct. 20, 2008



Ocean acidity levels have risen over the 20th century, but they are not out of the ordinary considering the fluctuations of the past 7,000 years. Average ocean surface water pH is 8.1 and has only decreased 0.1 since the beginning of the industrial revolution (neutral is pH 7, acid is below pH7).

Keith Sherwood and Craig Idso, PhD, "The Ocean Acidification Fiction," CO2 Science, June 2009
60.Dennis Ambler, "Acidified Shell Fish: A Distorted View," Science and Public Policy, Apr. 27, 2010



Changes in ocean currents are primarily responsible for the melting Greenland ice sheet, Arctic sea ice, and Arctic permafrost. Over the 20th century there have been two Arctic warming periods with a cooling period (1940-1970) in between. According to a peer-reviewed Apr. 19, 2009 study Geophysical Research Letters, natural shifts in the ocean currents are the major cause of these climate changes, not human generated greenhouse gases.

Petr Chylek, PhD, et al., "Arctic Air Temperature Change Amplificaton and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation," Geophysical Research Letters, July 16, 2009



The general consensus that the earth has warmed during the 20th century is based upon flawed temperature measurements. These measurements, taken from surface monitoring stations set up by the National Weather Service (NWS), are often contaminated by the "heat island effect." According to a Mar. 2009 study published by the Heartland Institute, 89% of NWS monitoring stations are too close to artificial heat sources such as large asphalt parking lots, air conditioners, heaters and other sources of artificial heat.

Anthony Watts, "Is the US Surface Temperature Record Reliable?," The Heartland Institute, 20

Many organizations believe that nature, not human activity, is primarily responsible for climate change. These groups include: the Heartland Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the George C. Marshall Institute, the CATO Institute, the American Enterprise Institute, the Institute for Energy Research, the National Center for Policy Analysis, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, and the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.


Theories of naturally caused climate change are often ignored by "mainstream" scientists and organizations because many research scientists are more interested in maintainining the flow of federal grant money for climate change research than in questioning the basic theory of human causation. From 1998-2009, nearly $25 billion in federal funds was allocated for climate science research. Researchers who question human-induced climate change often do not receive grant money for research projects.

Congressional Budget Office (CBO), "Federal Climate Change Programs: Funding History and Policy Issues," Congressional Budget Office - Home Page, Mar. 2010
Richard Lindzen, PhD "Climate of Fear: Global-Warming Alarmists Intimidate Dissenting Scientists into Scilence," Wall Street Journal, Apr. 12, 2006
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
79,360
Reaction score
35,411
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Liberalphobic, everything you just posted has been discussed repeatedly in this thread already.

Past climate ignored? Decades of work have been done on past climate change and the natural forces that drive it, because it helps provide a better understanding of what's happening now. That's an utterly absurd statement.
 

Compatibilist

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2010
Messages
775
Reaction score
270
Location
Bunkered in 5 klicks from city hall
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Liberalphobic, everything you just posted has been discussed repeatedly in this thread already.

Past climate ignored? Decades of work have been done on past climate change and the natural forces that drive it, because it helps provide a better understanding of what's happening now. That's an utterly absurd statement.

1. I doubt it... especially in one post. Assumming it has, it doesn't hurt for people like yourself to receive continuing education with additional review. Sometime it takes several reviews of truth for it to sink in make sense.
2. Decades of disputed "scientific" questionable methods doesn't necessarialy support or prove this theory of human caused Climate change. It's just as likely this is cyclic as the junk science attempting to claim otherwise.
3. It's absurd to believe an arrogant bunch of "scientists" seeking peer acceptance and influence along with monetary gain are absolutely correct...

There are many examples of scientists seeking to prove a hypothesis using flawed methods... The consequences aren't good when science is used to deliberately advance a particular agenda or viewpoint especially when politics, economics and/or personal power and prestige is involved... then all of science becomes suspect. Bad science can push out good science. When people are victimized by bad science with ulterior motives... this leads to suspect all science.

Scientific consensus in finance, social situations and, of course, very often in politics may seem to work sometimes. Maybe this is the reason that rarely does decisive action addressing problems happens in Congress. In science, consensus is often disastrous. Imagine using a consensus of scientists to decide whether helium or lead is heavier. If consensus is reached which states that lead is lighter, would that make it so? You can’t vote on scientific facts - they either exist or they don’t - unlike much of what passes for science today. It has been said that reason consists of always seeing things as they are. If only that were true in today’s debates over global warming and other pseudo science. The above example is ridiculous on its face yet there are many examples of equally absurd “scientific” conclusions reached by consensus. We can never forget the scientist who questions scientific orthodoxy arrived at by consensus. Galileo barely escaped being burned at the stake for stating the sun did not revolve around the earth.

Todays rational scientists who dispute the day of reckoning scenario of a “planet in crisis” face similar persecution. Climate scientists who question the current orthodoxy are accused of being climate change deniers much the same way that Galileo, and Copernicus before him, were called traitors, apostates and heretics. The consensus science in earlier periods are similar to now. Some of the GW fanatics advocate meteorologists [who disagree with the consensus] should lose their certification. Conform or be banished. Sound familiar? Political correctness may get a lot of adherents but consensus can’t change the scientific facts of the universe.

You want an example of consensus science proved wrong... how about the number of chromosomes that human beings have. For many years it was the consensus that humans had 48 chromosomes - 23 pairs of autosomes and 1 pair of sex chromosomes. You can look up the truth if you truly care. Lets not forget all the other accepted scientific junk including Piltdown Man, N-rays, Cold Fusion.... just to mae a few.

One of the slogans of the GW doom, it's necessary to reduce CO2 emissions and switch enviro friendly renewable fuels (as if we're running out of oil). Therefore we've had a significant rise in food costs worldwide because farmers and big agri biz rush to produce more ethanol that “eco friendly” which is stupid... This 'corn fuel' has its own emission problems and never will compete with fossil fuels absent gigantic govt subsidy and tax breaks.

The results of the flawed science in this are not only multiple but ugly. Go to safeway and check out the increased price of eggs? Chickens and cattle eat corn which costs are going up up up.... because of ethanol. What about the price of everything sweetened by high fructose corn syrup? We are just begining to feel the effects, but think populations whose staple food, the corn tortilla, has risen 200-300% and more? The domino effect from this ethanol scam will be worldwide.

Here's another shocking [and unintended] consequence of corn-based ethanol. When ethanol is made of corn a corn by-product is produced. What about all of this excess material? It's not possible to feed cattle their regular corn meal because of cost and scarcity, so we give them a corn by-product. And that is exactly what has been happening. This by-product changes the character of the mucosal lining of the gut of steers This causes their digestive tract to be more hospitable to the the toxic strain of E.Coli bacteria. For instance over 30 million pounds of E.Coli contaminated beef got into the market place in 2007 alone-and that’s just what was exposed- most likely a small % of the real contamination. Companies have gone bankrupt [job losses] because of recalls. In comparison... the E.Coli contaminated beef identified in 2006 which was less than 200,000 lbs. This is 125 times as much tainted beef in 2007 as in 2006. Stats beyond 2007 are difficult to find especially since it'd connected to this controversery It's reasonable to assume both figures... recalled and tainted but undetected have gone up astronomically each year since 2007 simply based on the history. Draw your own conclusions.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
79,360
Reaction score
35,411
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Derp. Confused this thread with the other, way longer one. My bad.

I do not support ethanol and never have.
 

celticwar17

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 17, 2011
Messages
6,540
Reaction score
2,524
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I think it's arrogant at best and dishonest at worst, to say that we know without a doubt that man is causing the Earth's climate to warm.

The ecology of a planet is incredibly complex, spans several different micro ecosystems, not including the effects of non planetary sources of heat.
Our understanding is still in it's infancy.

Do yo really think the entire world's worth of green-house gas and carbon makes NO negative impact on the world as a whole. I think it is absolutely ridiculous to think there are no consequence's to what we have been pumping into the atmosphere. We see the short term affects almost instantly, and short term affects usually lead to accurate predictions of long ones. The ecology of the planet IS very complex, but to make it so there isn't an ecology (deforestation, toxic pollution, overfishing,...etc.) erases all the checks and balances nature naturally installs into this eco-system- THAT is the very simple part to understand. Take away the checks and balances you take away the stabilization of the Earths ecology. If its not global warming it WILL be something else that is just as bad or worse will occur, because with the rise of human beings; we have evolved way to fast for anything else in this world to catch up and balance itself.
 
Last edited:

celticwar17

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 17, 2011
Messages
6,540
Reaction score
2,524
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The one and only flaw in Capitalism, is how it completely destroys the environment. The tendency to exploit resources for short term gain benefits this capitalistic society, but only because there is very little to non instantaneous business consequences. This is why, especially in our society, we have to protect the environment because of its disregard for the countries future health.
See, i love capitalism, but for it to work... the environment and natural resources need to be protected because they will be victimized by it.

i could talk about this forever, but ill reserve that for a more specify thread.
 

Walter

Banned
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
421
Reaction score
83
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Mr Hari hits the nail on the head yet again.

" Thank God man-made global warming was proven to be a hoax. Just imagine what the world might have looked like now if those conspiring scientists had been telling the truth. No doubt Nasa would be telling us that this year is now the hottest since humans began keeping records. The weather satellites would show that even when heat from the sun significantly dipped earlier this year, the world still got hotter. Russia's vast forests would be burning to the ground in the fiercest drought they have ever seen, turning the air black in Moscow, killing 15,000 people, and forcing foreign embassies to evacuate. Because warm air holds more water vapour, the world's storms would be hugely increasing in intensity and violence – drowning one fifth of Pakistan, and causing giant mudslides in China.

The world's ice sheets would be sloughing off massive melting chunks four times the size of Manhattan. The cost of bread would be soaring across the world as heat shrivelled the wheat crops. The increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would be fizzing into the oceans, making them more acidic and so killing 40 per cent of the phytoplankton that make up the irreplaceable base of the oceanic food chain. The denialists would be conceding at last that everything the climate scientists said would happen – with their pesky graphs and studies and computers – came to pass. ... "




Johann Hari: How much proof do the global warming deniers need? - Johann Hari, Commentators - The Independent

If there indeed was anything presented that could be considered PROOF...there would be no need for debate, anytime that someone feels the need to DEBATE any topic....such is not a FACT of SCIENCE, as SCIENCE deals in Observed, Reproducible evidences as concluded by constant experimental data, i.e., FACTS. Its a simple thing, don't debate anything just present the Objective evidence that defines Physical Science, and PROVE once and for all that Mankind 1.) Has the power to control the weather, when he cannot tell you with any certainty if its going to rain this weekend. 2) That Climate Changes are not reoccurring patterns controlled, not by the ultimate Weather producer on earth....the SUN, but are the result of man's introduction of Carbon Dioxide into the Atmosphere, which just happens to be a bi-product of all biological life on earth. When words are used instead of facts..that is Philosophy, not SCIENCE.

But, on the bright side....I do have some SLIGHTLY USED carbon offset credits to sell REAL CHEAP...now that the conservatives are not riding in the back seat any longer.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom