Yeah us "deniers" we just are stupid idiots easily duped by Big Oil Propaganda man, don't mind us much, we're dumb.
:roll:
There is plenty of peer reviewed science that counters AGW, but you claim there is none, why should we bother to waste space with a true believer?
Would Texas please do us all a favor and just secede, already?
Define what you would call not based on fear mongering? Al Gore isn't a scientist, so quoting him isn't science. Scientist thank him for making the issue more public, but note flaws in hispresentation. This doesn't mean there isn't a real problem and that man doesn't play a large role.
The science has been presented many, many times. And deniers often ignore it, and always go back to Gore. Why?
I suggest they do because it is easier than dealing with the science. As you can find any opinion on the internet, they pick the fringe, the minioty, and try to act as if they are equal. All things are not equal aand the majority view is that GW is real and in part man made 9not wholey).
Yes, I have. And most of that would be there regardless of their findings. It isn't there due to the result, like it is with the oil companies. Governments have no real gain concerning GW scinece. Companies do. In fact, it would work best for governments, for example, if the science wasn't what it was, which puts a whole in part of your argument.
But the fact is the science overwhelmingly supports GW and that man plays a role. This can be supported with any honest
search.
Well, Al Gore is correct. People do not respond to arguments or empirical evidence.
That's unfortunate, but a reality. You need to appeal to their emotions, because they will ignore other types of appeals. A recent study showed that warning labels are cigarette packs that focus on the objective health problems caused by tobacco smoke inhalation are not as effective as ones that appeal to the impact on somone's "personal looks or relations."
You need to hype up a problem like global warming and make it personal because no one cares otherwise. They think in terms of anecdotes and stories, not stats.
There is no big conspiracy to grab power. The biggest economic interests are in maintaining the status quo. You can make far more money opposing Global Warming than in supporting the concept.
Edit: Regarding supposed fraud, all the scientists in 'climate gate" were exhonerated and no evidence of any wrongdoing was found. At this point, no one seriously doubts global average temperatures are increasing, except for a few select, and very vocal, interest groups. But these are the same groups of people who fought for decades against evidence that showed Tobacco smoke was bad for you.
The whole goal is to pass cap and trade. It's all about power and money. If it's only the environment and clean energy, we'll get there without cap and trade. We'll cut emissions without the government collapsing the economy and controlling every aspect of our lives. Let the free market work. There is no Global Warming Crisis that the Gov can use to do things they were never able to do before.
Unregulated markets don't work. The meltdown of our financial system proved that yet again. This is not really a matter of free market anyway, it is a problem of people misusing a common resource for their own benefit (the "sheep on the commons" problem). We have stopped companies from dumping cancer-causing crap in our rivers. It make sense to keep them, and all of us, from doing damage to the common resource that is our atmosphere. One way to motivate people to change their polluting ways is to make the cost of this behavior prohibitive. It exposes the true cost and it makes it alternatives more cost competitive. This is not so much a matter trying to regulate as it is an attempt to wean us from a really bad behavior, burning fossils for fuel.
But, what does Charles Manson, James Lee (the discovery channel situation), and Obama's science scar have in common??
They are all global warming alarmists, and advocate murder in order to accomplish their environmental objectives.... sure the science czar holdren is nice about it, he just advocates having everyone sterilized and has a beaurocrat decide if you can breed. The sad thing is, this isn't a joke.
This isn't true... if we were talking about REAL solutions to the REAL problems, and still offered sensible ways to mitigate or eliminate these problems in a safe a clean way, you would find that your scientific arguments would work because they don't conflict with even the most basic understanding of science. I mean, I didn't learn the full chemical process of photosynthesis, but I DO KNOW enough to know that CO2 is converted into
LMAO!!! Serious?? Ok, you probably think this has to do with money... have you seen the homes of these people??? SO long as the environmental "crisis" carries on, the more governments will fund the scientific developments... so, yes, there's ALOT of money to be made... but when you're talking about those in charge of the energy companies, oil companies, and the banks that fund them... they are already fabulously wealthy beyond what they would ever need if they lived 50 lifetimes. This isn't about the money in as much as that money keeps them in control.
\Yes, all it took was a hearing of a bunch of global warming alarmists who looked and said 'no no wrong doing, they are cleared of any charges.
Your analogy is flipped around though... they are using 'tobacco science' to justify global warming.
I mean seriously, I have YET to see an alarmist even ATTEMPT to consider the suns energy in the equation... because the ANGLE ALONE of the suns rays hitting earth can make a difference between sweltering hot and so cold your spit freezes before it hits the ground. Then they get into 'co2 half-lifes' like it's friggen radiation or something... like come on children, it's CO2... you exhale it, plants 'breath' it... the earth is at a co2 starved point compared to points in history, without mentioning that a doubling of CO2 ONLY MAKES PLANTS SOAK UP MORE!!!
We can't get a weather forecast a week ahead with anything better then a 50-50 guess and these climate models,claim to be accurate HUNDREDS of years in the future. Yet they spend BILLIONS world wide... come on... there are SERIOUS and simple to remedy solutions... for example, pulp & paper replace it with hemp (not pot) and boom several issues just evaporate. Then you could look at the genetic pollution from genetic engineering of plants and animals... the recent studies on this subject are damning.
But you tell an "environmentalist" these things and it doesn't matter... it's all because there are too many humans breathing... that's the root of the "problem" according to these psychos that are pushing this at the top... and yes there is a such thing as a smart psychopath.
No, it's not that 'unregulated' markets don't work... it's that there's been a lack of ENFORCEMENT of the crimes that can occur more easily in unregulated markets.
Finally someone that wants to talk about REAL environmental damage... but then goes back to blaming it all on fossil fuels... oops.
Well, first, the fact that some people are crazy doesn't mean the core idea isn't true. The character of adherants doesn't detract from the truth of the concept. While some environmentalists are certain crazy, thats not really ultimately important.
But, regarding the no breeding thing, the basic concept is valid: people need to stop pumping out rabbit warrens. Too many people. No one likes to hear this, because everyone likes happy thoughts.
it'sthe
I don't see how it's false to say that people are often emotional, irrational, and do not respond well to statistical or empirical explanations. If that weren't the case, then modern mass advertisements wouldn't be so effective, and people wouldn't be more responsive to "smoking will make you look ugly" labels instead of objective health statistics.
The problem with "sensible" methods to mitigate is "sensible" is really codeword for "anything that's not too inconvenient." People are generally lazy and short-term thinkers (just like the modern business model). Sensible to Joe Average is actually so insignficant a measure, it would never do anything, and even then, you will spend years trying to convince them of just doing that.
There are still millions of people who think the Earth is 10,000 years old. THat's the population you're dealing with. Making a scientific argument to a lay audience is beyond pointless. You're better off using hand puppets and scare tactics. :mrgreen:
We're dealing with a very serious future problem, and while it's hardly going to be the end of human civilization, we need to address it. But we don't have the advantage of unity to fix it. You got a corrupt, slow democratic system where anything proposed is trapped in endless debate, a population that is either totally ignorant or apathetic if it involves sacrifice, and a firmly entrenched and powerful battery of interest groups that oppose any real change (most industries). It took forever just to get passed the front organizations that tried to argue smoke inhalation isn't bad for you. And people still don't respond that well to the medical science.
Yea, I have seen the homes, and while some people certainly take advantage of teh whole green craze, far more money can be made and mustered by the opponents of change. Green industry or advocates are small chump change.
Actually, the whole argument that global warming is some conspiracy to make money scientists is bizarre, since far more money would be made if they disproved it. The ones who have the real power are also the people most vocally against global warming.
That's an assumption with no evidence. The case was examined and dismissed, as it had no merit.
Quite the contrary. No serious climatologist disagrees that average global temperatures are increasing. The only actual debate is the pace and the scope of damages. There are a few people who disagree, but then again, there are some biologists who don't believe in evolution, either (M. Behe). They are marginal.
The Sun does have an impact on Earth's climate. If not, we'd all be dead. However, modern climate models do in fact take into consideratoin solar cycles. Ironically, a lot of warming happened when the sun was least active. The sun is not a major factor in this case of warming according to the best available data.
Just because CO2 is natural, and common, does not mean it's harmless or without consequence. That's a serious error. Water can poison you, after all.
Yes, plants can soak up more CO2, but only to a certain extent. To believe the Earth is an infinite sink would be to commit the No Limits fallacy.
Weather isn't climate. It's actually easier to predict and deal with climate than daily weather changes.
Wait, who said the problem is caused by too many humans breathing? I've never heard any actual authorities on the subject specifically say that. You mock the concept of overpopulation, but it's actually a serious problem, but not for the reason you outlined. Are you under the impression that resources are infinite and that the Earth can sustain an infinite population?
This is a non-sequitur. Regulation means having criminal penalties for bad behavior. If there were no penalties, then it is, by definition, unregulated and there is nothing to enforce.
I was staying relevant to the thread. If you would like to discuss other random environmental damage, maybe you should start a new one.
Not quite... regulation means controlled. There are laws in place that exist regardless of regulation or deregulation. White collar crimes are for the most part unenforced... the majority of law enforcement is focused on the poor - middle classes.
I mean, it took 10 years before the SEC finally prosecuted Madoff...
heyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy! some of us are very reasonable. (and have boobs and purty tails!)
One way to motivate people to change their polluting ways is to make the cost of this behavior prohibitive. It exposes the true cost and it makes it alternatives more cost competitive. This is not so much a matter trying to regulate as it is an attempt to wean us from a really bad behavior, burning fossils for fuel.
This is nothing but a power grab. Picking winners and losers. Forcing people into cars,homes, life styles they may not choose. Why? POWER and Money. It has nothing to do with lowering the temperature of the planet. It has everything to do with passing an energy bill that will have cap and trade in it and redistribution of wealth to other countries.
Let's say CAP and TRADE passes, what do the "experts" say the difference in the Earths temperature will be in 20 yrs?
Remember China and Indonesia don't have to participate and our jobs will be going there for them to pollute.
Naturally, and even Al Gore in his latest book (unless there's a more recent one then what I'm thinking of) he's discussed how a 'science based' approach to tackling 'global warming' won't work, preferring instead 'faith based' arguments.
When the scientific questions on which these studies are founded are asked in such a way as to frame the problem in terms of CO2's impact on the area of study... odds are the intention is to create a study that will be used to fear monger.
To illustrate the point let's use the studies involving ocean acidification...
It was claimed that CO2 makes the oceans more acid (when sulfur has a far greater effect on PH levels)... then the claim was made how this would kill off ocean life... then the studies are complete and what do you know, all the previous fear mongering had neglected to account for the fact that marine life has survived through millions of years of atmospheric changes and can adapt to these minute changes.... IN SPITE of the fact that to get any 'useful' results the scientists had to use tests with 2-5 TIMES the current atmospheric levels of CO2..
Another quick illustration : If you go to a greenhouse, the CO2 levels are artificially raised to around 1000ppm of CO2 because the plants grow more efficiently with the higher levels of CO2.
Because Gore is the most vocal and noted alarmist... in spite of the fact that his film must start with a warning essentially stating 'Not a factual documentary'. The 'loose change' of the global warming.
Now, the science itself... look at the source; the CRU. They have been caught and admitted to fudging the data, and 'lost' the raw data, among other scandals. SO... EVEN IF the science had something to it... because of the corruption of a few individuals working for the IPCC and the CRU, now DECADES of science and understanding of the environment MUST be tossed out and restarted. One rotten apple has ruined the whole batch. I'm sorry to state it like that, but that's the reality... since they have been caught in a scientific fraud ANY scientific paper with their name on it, MUST for the sake of GOOD science be tossed out and restarted. Don't blame the deniers for that, blame the beloved alarmists.
Yes, 'in part' is the key word here... in terms of CO2, that 'in part' is equivalent to 'background noise'. How many climate scientists have refused to even add the solar energy as part of their climate equation??? I've yet to see one. Yet, it's not 'co2' levels that rise untill midday and fall through the night... it's the sun.
So, once again, if you want to talk about REAL destruction of the environment rather then these damn fraudsters telling us that to save the world we gotta stop breathing... then we can have a conversation... untill then I'm treating GW alarmists as they are.... A JOKE.
Saw a report that it's been determined that Swine Flu is absolutely no more dangerous than the typical everyday flu bug.
This is EXACTLY why I want Texas to secede. Go build your own damn country.
As I have said, Gore doesn't matter at all. He's not a scientist. So, going after Gore is a way to deflect from the science.
And yes, in part is key, but no, it is not equal to background noise.
The whole of the scientific coimmunity complately disagrees with you on that, and state so clearly. Pretendning otherwise is the real joke. A sad, sad joke play by and on deniers.
Carbon Dioxide is a powerful cerebral dilator. At concentrations between 2 and 10%, Carbon Dioxide can cause nausea, dizziness, headache, mental confusion, increased blood pressure and respiratory rate. Above 8% nausea and vomiting appear. Above 10%, suffocation and death can occur within minutes
'The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.'
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?