• 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!

I am so sick of the lies

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
that I am posting this letter to a Senator:

Dear Senator:

As you consider climate change legislation, we, as leaders of scientific
organizations, write to state the consensus scientific view.

Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is
occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the
greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver.
These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence,
and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of
the vast body of peer-reviewed science. Moreover, there is strong
evidence that ongoing climate change will have broad impacts on
society, including the global economy and on the environment. For the
United States, climate change impacts include sea level rise for coastal
states, greater threats of extreme weather events, and increased risk of
regional water scarcity, urban heat waves, western wildfires, and the
disturbance of biological systems throughout the country. The severity
of climate change impacts is expected to increase substantially in the
coming decades.

If we are to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change, emissions
of greenhouse gases must be dramatically reduced. In addition,
adaptation will be necessary to address those impacts that are already
unavoidable. Adaptation efforts include improved infrastructure design,
more sustainable management of water and other natural resources,
modified agricultural practices, and improved emergency responses to
storms, floods, fires and heat waves.

We in the scientific community offer our assistance to inform your
deliberations as you seek to address the impacts of climate change.
There is no ambiguity here. There is no more need to "test the science". There is not disagreement between mainstream scientists. This is not a case of "there might be global warming, but whether or not it is man made is inconclusive".

Why am I making the above statement? First read the letter, then know that this was prepared jointly by the following scientific organizations:

American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Meteorological Society
American Society of Agronomy
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Statistical Association
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
Botanical Society of America
Crop Science Society of America
Ecological Society of America
Natural Science Collections Alliance
Organization of Biological Field Stations
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society of Systematic Biologists
Soil Science Society of America
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research

I rest my case. These are actual scientists, not laymen, political hacks, and TV weathermen, who spend all their waking lives snorting Koch (pun intended).

Statement is here.
 
Last edited:

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,659
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
that I am posting this letter to a Senator:



There is no ambiguity here. There is no more need to "test the science". There is not disagreement between mainstream scientists. This is not a case of "there might be global warming, but whether or not it is man made is inconclusive".

Why am I making the above statement? First read the letter, then know that this was prepared jointly by the following scientific organizations:

American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Meteorological Society
American Society of Agronomy
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Statistical Association
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
Botanical Society of America
Crop Science Society of America
Ecological Society of America
Natural Science Collections Alliance
Organization of Biological Field Stations
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society of Systematic Biologists
Soil Science Society of America
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research

I rest my case. These are actual scientists, not laymen, political hacks, and TV weathermen, who spend all their waking lives snorting Koch (pun intended).

Statement is here.
All I know is somebody better tell China and India.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,259
Reaction score
32,380
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The link is broken. I'm very interested, if you can repost. Thanks.
While I wouldn't call it "lightyears" ahead, they're ramping up production of solar and wind power generation faster than we are. China isn't stupid, they know they can't possibly reach the US level of consumption per capita on electricity by using fossil fuels - there's not enough production on earth!
 

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
These are actual scientists, not laymen, political hacks, and TV weathermen, who spend all their waking lives snorting Koch (pun intended).
All of which are irrelevant to people who do not have a basic grasp of science.

CO2 does not trap heat. Get that through your mind. Thus, global warming = fraud.

Ignore the simple experiment involve two jars, one with high concentration of Co2 and one with regular air and two heat lamps. It's just a fraud. All fraud. All science is a fraud!

Anyways, on a serious note, it's probably too late to actually stop it. Now we should be focused on reduction and planning for the exceptionally strange weather that will be coming.
 

Orion

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,083
Reaction score
3,918
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The window to change the coming events, I think, has already closed, or we are rapidly approaching the end of it. The problem with our current economic model is that we think too short term. If we can meet the needs of this quarter then that works, but there is very little thought dedicated to conservation or rationing of future resources. It's just about profit maximization, right now. How can we temper the current system - which has been relatively short lived - to respond to the future? Do we have to wait until the big problems are literally one quarter away before we start caring?

I just don't understand what most of the governments are doing. The proof is conclusive, how much more is needed? Is money really THAT important?
 

MKULTRABOY

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
10,621
Reaction score
2,104
Location
In your dreams...
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
While I wouldn't call it "lightyears" ahead, they're ramping up production of solar and wind power generation faster than we are. China isn't stupid, they know they can't possibly reach the US level of consumption per capita on electricity by using fossil fuels - there's not enough production on earth!
I wasnt aware consumption of energy was a goal in itself.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,259
Reaction score
32,380
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I wasnt aware consumption of energy was a goal in itself.
The goal is to become a properly modernized and industrialized nation. Energy consumption is a result of that development, not the goal of it. We can't just continue our consumption habits and expect that nobody else will try and do the same.
 

bowerbird

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
1,431
Reaction score
563
Location
australia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
All I know is somebody better tell China and India.
China is actually in a better position to do something about this than we are - mostly because the ruling party ARE mainly composed of scientists and engineers and the whole dictatorship thing means what they say goes.

China is moving toward a low carbon economy - but more importantly is what is being researched in China

Google up "Pebble reactors"

China is positioning itself to corner the electric car market

China's electric car displayed at NAIAS_English_Xinhua

and it is working on reducing the coal fired power stations - but not for CO2 but for the fact that the yellow cloud of sulphur that is almost choking China is interfering with the monsoonal rains

India is actually the tougher nut to crack as far as pollution control goes
 

theangryamerican

Can't stop the signal...
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
2,233
Reaction score
1,184
Location
The Wild West
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
18 signatures on a letter is hardly overwhelming consensus...
 

Demon of Light

Bohemian Revolutionary
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
5,095
Reaction score
1,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Why is it that people seem to assume scientists are immune to corruption? Scientists can have a political bias and that can and does affect their research. When you have these heads of scientific organizations pushing for policy by government then obviously the science has been politicized. One thing we should understand is that the scientific community is usually more globalist than the given national community in any country. Seeing some global government emerge would not only please them, it would make their work easier and more profitable.

There is global warming and this much we can say fairly. Carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere has increased since 1850 and carbon dioxide emissions by man no doubt constitute a part of that increase. However, whether carbon dioxide concentrations have caused or significantly contributed to the increases in temperature is highly disputable and how much of an effect humanity has had on that factor and temperature in generally is also highly disputable.

A bunch of scientists supporting policies requiring the theory to accurate saying it is solid and conclusive should be taken with no more authority any other group advocating a change of policy. What you should do is evaluate their claims and see if they meet up to real, objective scrutiny. Unfortunately, very few people in the scientific industry are free of the corruption from either side.

So the only real way to go about it is check research and data from advocates and see where they conflict with the general theory. Data on the melting of the glaciers and melting of sea ice strongly suggest the process was going on not only long before carbon dioxide emissions rose, but before there was even an increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Given temperature data showing a warming period preceding 1850 it seems reasonable to conclude this was the cause and that it likely had nothing to do with human behavior.

After that one has to ask what impact that process had on temperatures and if it would also create an increase in carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere. If so that could very easily provide a reason for the correlation between rising levels of carbon dioxide and rising temperatures.

Now that I have put forward one possible alternative explanation please point to a study that addresses this explanation. If my simple critique is not addressed then perhaps you should avoid calling it a conclusive theory.
 

bowerbird

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
1,431
Reaction score
563
Location
australia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
18 signatures on a letter is hardly overwhelming consensus...
That is not individuals - that is the governing bodies for those specialities - bit like when the AMA came out and told us that smoking was not good for us
 

bowerbird

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
1,431
Reaction score
563
Location
australia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Why is it that people seem to assume scientists are immune to corruption? Scientists can have a political bias and that can and does affect their research. When you have these heads of scientific organizations pushing for policy by government then obviously the science has been politicized. One thing we should understand is that the scientific community is usually more globalist than the given national community in any country. Seeing some global government emerge would not only please them, it would make their work easier and more profitable.

There is global warming and this much we can say fairly. Carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere has increased since 1850 and carbon dioxide emissions by man no doubt constitute a part of that increase. However, whether carbon dioxide concentrations have caused or significantly contributed to the increases in temperature is highly disputable and how much of an effect humanity has had on that factor and temperature in generally is also highly disputable.

A bunch of scientists supporting policies requiring the theory to accurate saying it is solid and conclusive should be taken with no more authority any other group advocating a change of policy. What you should do is evaluate their claims and see if they meet up to real, objective scrutiny. Unfortunately, very few people in the scientific industry are free of the corruption from either side.

So the only real way to go about it is check research and data from advocates and see where they conflict with the general theory. Data on the melting of the glaciers and melting of sea ice strongly suggest the process was going on not only long before carbon dioxide emissions rose, but before there was even an increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Given temperature data showing a warming period preceding 1850 it seems reasonable to conclude this was the cause and that it likely had nothing to do with human behavior.

After that one has to ask what impact that process had on temperatures and if it would also create an increase in carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere. If so that could very easily provide a reason for the correlation between rising levels of carbon dioxide and rising temperatures.

Now that I have put forward one possible alternative explanation please point to a study that addresses this explanation. If my simple critique is not addressed then perhaps you should avoid calling it a conclusive theory.
Proof? Thought not

The sceptical argument that current warming is a continuation of the same warming that ended the LIA is unlikely. There is a lack of evidence for a suitable forcing (e.g. the sun) and numerous correlations with known natural forcings that can account for the LIA itself, and the subsequent climate recovery. Taken in isolation, the LIA might cast doubt on the theory of climate change. Considered alongside the empirical evidence, model predictions and a century of scientific research into the climate, recovery from the LIA is not a plausible theory to explain the observed evidence and rate of global climate change.
What ended the Little Ice Age?
 

Dezaad

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
5,058
Reaction score
2,424
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
I have chosen to understand the science as best I can and concur with the overwhelming consensus of the experts that global warming is occurring and that man's activities are the cause.

However, the issue has the characteristics of a problem that will not be solved. Politically, it is typical of the game theory scenarios where everyone loses. I see no reason to put the United States at a disadvantage to other carbon polluters, when in the end it is highly likely that the exact same amount of carbon dioxide will end up in the atmosphere.

If China, India and the rest of the world will agree to proper constraints, and they are enforceable, I might change my mind. I mention China and India specifically because they are fast increasing their pollution, and with their huge populations, are thereby the biggest threats to achieving relative climate stability.
 
Last edited:

Demon of Light

Bohemian Revolutionary
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
5,095
Reaction score
1,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
What exactly are you asking me to prove? There are six paragraphs that you responded to by posting some typical debunking site's summary explanation for why people claiming the sun did it are wrong, which is odd because I never claimed it had anything to do with the sun, or at least the sun exclusively.
 

Orion

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,083
Reaction score
3,918
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
If China, India and the rest of the world will agree to proper constraints, and they are enforceable, I might change my mind. I mention China and India specifically because they are fast increasing their pollution, and with their huge populations, are thereby the biggest threats to achieving relative climate stability.
The thing is, China is actually inventing, seeking, and implementing carbon-neutral alternatives much more than the United States is. The reason is that their environment is on the verge of collapse and public health is a major issue right now. 80,000 people die per year in Shanghai alone due to respiratory illness directly related to pollution. When I was last there, I lived in Nanjing, the capital city of Jiangsu province. On its lowest pollution days, it had 5 times more pollution than Los Angeles. Respiratory infection is so common, it's unbelievable. I had bronchitis 4 times that year, and pneumonia once when the winter cold set in.

The reason why China is such a major polluter is that it's a developing nation, combined with a burgeoning middle class and capitalist society. That said, for all the flack they receive, they are implementing green technology as they go, to supplement the coal power. The government has assured the public and the world that once major development is complete, they will do their best to switch to green power. In that regard, I actually believe them, mostly because the key to the long term power of the Communists partially lies in giving the public a cleaner environment. (It's a big issue there right now.) Problem is... can the global ecosystem survive China's development? That is the million dollar question.

Anyway... I just wanted to throw that out there. China is not held hostage by the fossil fuel industry like we are here. And soon they are going to dominate the electric car market on top of it.
 

theangryamerican

Can't stop the signal...
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
2,233
Reaction score
1,184
Location
The Wild West
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
That is not individuals - that is the governing bodies for those specialities - bit like when the AMA came out and told us that smoking was not good for us
I see no evidence that those 18 individuals speak for their organizations as a whole. Just because they list their title as "President" doesn't make them any more authoritative than any other scientist and you're just basing your argument on an appeal to authority. "But LOOK, all these PRESIDENTS of scientific bodies said this, so it MUST be true!"

Not to mention, that half of those organizations have nothing to do with climatological research...

That letter means nothing. Watch this:

18 scientists believe in global warming.

31,000 scientists don't believe in global warming.
Home - Global Warming Petition Project

I win. Thank you for playing.
 
Last edited:

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other

bowerbird

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
1,431
Reaction score
563
Location
australia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
I see no evidence that those 18 individuals speak for their organizations as a whole. Just because they list their title as "President" doesn't make them any more authoritative than any other scientist and you're just basing your argument on an appeal to authority. "But LOOK, all these PRESIDENTS of scientific bodies said this, so it MUST be true!"

Not to mention, that half of those organizations have nothing to do with climatological research...

That letter means nothing. Watch this:

18 scientists believe in global warming.

31,000 scientists don't believe in global warming.
Home - Global Warming Petition Project

I win. Thank you for playing.

Do you think that if the president of the AMA came out and said that Do-it-yourself surgery is the best option he would not be tossed out the next day???

but in fact those were not statements made by one person but by the association as a whole - they are signed by the head of the association but it is a statement meant to reflect the ideology of the society as a whole.

And these are not the only scientific societies to put out statements like this - numerous international societies have done so
 
Last edited:

theangryamerican

Can't stop the signal...
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
2,233
Reaction score
1,184
Location
The Wild West
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You do realize you just cited a list full of fake people, people who never authorized their names to be put on and people with no understand of the subject no?

The fact you posted that is rather frightening as it suggests you are highly gullible.

Oregon Petition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You do realize that I never said I was citing that study for its truth or accuracy, no? My point was how easy it is to find a “list” of people who supposedly support a certain position whether pro or con. My opinion of the letter in the OP is much the same as your opinion of the link I provided. I didn’t think that would be a hard extrapolation for someone of average intelligence to make. I Googled “list of scientists against global warming” and posted the first result to prove a point, nothing more. If you think otherwise, please quote to me where I cited the accuracy of the petition. Thank you for immediately resulting to hysterical character assassination though. I’d expect no less from the Sky-is-Falling Crowd.

I almost feel bad, sometimes you people are almost too easy to trap.

Do you think that if the president of the AMA came out and said that Do-it-yourself surgery is the best option he would not be tossed out the next day???

but in fact those were not statements made by one person but by the association as a whole - they are signed by the head of the association but it is a statement meant to reflect the ideology of the society as a whole.

And these are not the only scientific societies to put out statements like this - numerous international societies have done so
Prove it.
 
Last edited:

Cardinal

Respected on both sides
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
72,885
Reaction score
52,085
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You do realize that I never said I was citing that study for its truth or accuracy, no? My point was how easy it is to find a “list” of people who supposedly support a certain position whether pro or con. My opinion of the letter in the OP is much the same as your opinion of the link I provided. I didn’t think that would be a hard extrapolation for someone of average intelligence to make. I Googled “list of scientists against global warming” and posted the first result to prove a point, nothing more. If you think otherwise, please quote to me where I cited the accuracy of the petition. Thank you for immediately resulting to hysterical character assassination though. I’d expect no less from the Sky-is-Falling Crowd.

I almost feel bad, sometimes you people are almost too easy to trap.
I don't know about anyone else here, but I think a trap that involved a link to actual scientific papers written by actual scientists casting doubt on gw/agw would have been much more effective.
 

theangryamerican

Can't stop the signal...
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
2,233
Reaction score
1,184
Location
The Wild West
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I don't know about anyone else here, but I think a trap that involved a link to actual scientific papers written by actual scientists casting doubt on gw/agw would have been much more effective.
Perhaps, but if the lure catches a fish, can you argue with its effectiveness?
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom