Is Global Warming a Hoax?
- Started
- Last post
- 136 Responses
- ********0
- GeorgesII0
but low,
How can they be sure that the science is settled.
Science can't be settled, even nowaday we're discovering there are a lot more to discover in the things we thought we're "settled".
there's no consensus in the scientific crowd that man is causing AGW, we think we are but its not sure. If an algore can come out and say without twitching that the earth is warming/ by 2050 we will be under water/ the himalayan glaciers will be all melted and top that with a ALL scientist agree with us.
then that's is a blatant lie because there's no consensus, and they can't be because all those scientist, even nobel laureate that have real credential are doubting the effect of man on climate change.You can't make a lie and top it with another lie on top of another lie.
As of tobacco we knew 50 years before that it was a killer, do you believe the same corporations that are now saying bio ethanol is the way to go didn't know 10 years ago that it would impoverish and cause famine in 3rd world countries.
profit, profit, profit
- utopian0
- When in doubt, draw a graph on a whiteboardgjd
- this has always been my argument, Let's act and worry about whether climate change will happen later.BaskerviIle
- ********0
There needs to be a culture shift, globally. God only knows how this could occur.
The only solution is slow down. Progress at an exponential rate (growth every year) means that we'll always consume more.
- GeorgesII0
utopian, this has to be the most posted video on any gw thread ever, but what does it proves?
nothing.because we don't decide, do you think we really have a choice or you live in a happy, everything is fine, we can do it bubble?
comon please stoping posting this and actually start looking for a solution, because NOBODY HERE IS FOR POLLUTING.
I commute 3 hours a day to work, don't own a car, don't mix my garbage and have been wearing the same crap for the past 10 years.
I'm just sick of people waking up right now thinking that forcing our hand via taxes will change a thing.- I walk around with a tank of nitrous outside.GeorgesII
- outside = oxide eheheGeorgesII
- http://www.youtube.c…utopian
- lowimpakt0
@GeorgesII
i don't think science has settled but you have to make decisions on best available evidence. (can it ever be settled? I don't fully understand how gravity works but I am happy to accept it exists)
I would push it even further and say you have to take risk. show some leadership and innovate. If you have to wait until every minute detail is checked and triple checked and you have some faux-consensus we'll never get anything done.
but then again I am a designer and tend to be fatally optimistic.
but I am struggling to really really understand the point you are making or understand what solution you are offering.
- lowimpakt0
p.s. regarding your claim of a consensus lie
"Consensus is defined in English as, firstly, general agreement and, secondly, group solidarity of belief or sentiment. It has its origin in a Latin word meaning literally to feel together."
then the consensus was/is true.
- ********0
Maybe first alien contact will save us .. just like Star Trek.
- lowimpakt0
in my view, electronic waste being dumped in africa/china is linked to climate change. They are all outcomes of unsustainable systems of production and consumption - e.g. market and system failures.
- ********0
Anyone want to read?
U.N. climate panel admits Dutch sea level flaw
http://www.reuters.com/article/i…UK climate scientist to temporarily step down
http://www.breitbart.com/article…http://www.drudgereportarchives.…
'Climategate' Professor Phil Jones 'considered suicide over email scandal'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth…
- lowimpakt0
I was amazed today that the Telegraph (UK right tabloid) published this.
"Do we want to ignore climate change and risk losing all this?
................So if the sceptics’ main standard-bearers effectively agree with environmentalists over the basic science, what on earth is all the fuss about? What is the basis for all the over-excited claims that global warming is a “hoax”, a “scam”, or the greatest scientific scandal ever? Can so much heat have ever been generated where there is actually so much enlightened agreement? Yet there is still plenty to debate, and here I must make a confession – I only quoted part of Dr Peiser’s sentence above. He went on: “What is uncertain is the magnitude and timescale of the effect.”
Again, he is right – and almost everyone would agree. Indeed, the controversy surrounding the latest IPCC report – such as its gross error in predicting the disappearance of the Himalayan glaciers, and whether global warming is increasing the number of storms, floods and droughts – concerns this, not the essential science.
So, despite the often vitriolic debate, there is much common ground. All but the extremists on either side agree that the planet is warming and that humanity is at least partly responsible – and that we don’t know how big its contribution is, or what the effects will be
.......
So we are clearly embroiled in the wrong argument. We should be debating not scientific certainty, but risk – or, more precisely, to what level of risk we are prepared to take with the futures of our children and grandchildren.
..........................
The IPCC concludes – on the basis of a vast number of peer-reviewed studies, and despite the occasional mistake – that there is a 90 per cent chance that dangerous climate change will take place unless we take radical action to combat it. But let’s say it is wildly wrong. Should we accept a 50 per cent, 10 per cent or one per cent chance?
....................."
- lowimpakt0
It is pretty funny/annoying how rubbish scientists are at PR and how the "climate denial" lobbyists funded by oil/coal interests don't have to worry about evidence or science. they have initiated a witch hunt.
I was surprised to see that some of the big funders of climate change skepticism, such as Exxon, were deciding to chnage their tune and stop funding anti-climate change lies.
"Alan T. Jeffers, a spokesman for Exxon Mobil, said by e-mail that the company had ended support “to several public policy research groups whose position on climate change could divert attention from the important discussion about how the world will secure the energy required for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner.”"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/0…
but then i wasn't surprised to learn that it wasn't really the case
"ExxonMobil is a key player behind the scenes, having donated hundreds of thousands of dollars in the past few years to climate change sceptics. The Atlas Foundation, created by the late Sir Anthony Fisher (founder of the Institute of Economic Affairs), received more than $100,000 in 2008 from ExxonMobil, according to the oil company's reports.
Atlas has supported more than 30 other foreign think-tanks that espouse climate change scepticism, and co-sponsored a meeting of the world's leading climate sceptics in New York last March. Called "Global Warming: Was It Ever Really a Crisis?", it was organised by the Heartland Institute – a group that described the event as "the world's largest-ever gathering of global warming sceptics". The organisation is another right-wing think-tank to have benefited from funding given by ExxonMobil in recent years. "
- GeorgesII0
don't worry low,
no matter what will be the choice we make, they are already set up to win on both fronts.
It's hypocritical to point out the money given to so called skeptic, while ignoring the same money coming from the same company passed through foundation set up by the same corporation to green movement.this is where the falsity lies. It lies in thinking that a multi billion corporation won't give to both sides. how do you think Al Gore set up Hara, with his own money? or using money wired to him through numerous foundations...
- it sounds like yr angry with everything today GeorgesII********
- its sunday and tomorrow is monday, HOW CAN I BE FUCKN HAPPY!!!!!!!11Q1GeorgesII
- it sounds like yr angry with everything today GeorgesII
- lowimpakt0
I sometimes struggle to fully understand where you are coming from. I know you're fixated on a devisive worldview of clans or subgroups e.g. business, government and people. it is an either/or world where you're level of mistrust is off the scale.
yes, business is out to make profit. in fact, they are legally bound to maximise profit for their shareholders.
to me, the issue is HOW they make profit and WHAT they do with it.
i think you need to broaden your view, get over your lack of trust, criticise where appropriate and make some positive suggestions for alternatives - instead of the broken record of lies and corruption :)
- GeorgesII0
Low, I come from a 3rd world country according to the western point of view.
My grandfather from father side was a meteorologue, from my grandmother side a simple cultivator. they both worked their asses of to send both my parents to school which was not a easy thing. my mom ended up working for 35 years in a important african bank, while my dad chose a diplomatic career. I got from both my love and respect for this planet and the lack of trust for the psychopath in high position.
I got to travel, hang out with people who were way beyond my class/ clans/ subgroup, its kinda naive from you to pretend they don't exist because they do and they don't give a crap about you. Believe me once you get to hang out with people that had properties before the USA was ever founded, you'll understand.The broken record of lies and corruption is what makes this world go around, I don't know if you realize it but its pretty much what keeps it afloat. If we really want to do something positive about this planet we need to fix this problem first because if we don't we'll just end up in the same mess we were in the first place no matter which way we go.
you rarely give a solution yourself, you just point what in your pov is right. I do the same, we disagree its alright, free speech is made for that. but you can't pretend those in charges of the climate matter are the beacon of honesty.
My level of mistrust is high because, I've seen the pillaging of an entire continent which continues till this day, unnoticed until a natural disaster strike (look haiti), Everyday I thank God to be able to sit here and speakmy mind while doing what I can to send a few euros back.
I wonder if you even believe in what you say because you link your portfolio to HRW and denies that lies and corruption is the first source of problem on this rock. Dude, your a serious mind fuck for me. :)
I'm not sitting here talking out of my ass because I read some links on internet, I just speak my mind on what I'm experiencing from a personal, direct pov. For me, before debating climate change, we should first fix the corruptions and lies and then we can start finding a way out, all together, united for a common goal.
*cues claps
- gabe0
whatsup, what exactly is your agenda? in just one day you posted two political threads that are both anti-semitic in nature. why don't you just come out and say what you really want to say?
- ukit0
Here's the thing, sure you can debate global warming, just like you can debate evolution, gravity, the Earth being flat and all scientific theories. And people who don't actually know what they're talking about but who have a political view on it can find examples here and there and pretend they invalidate the entire thing, like the ones Fred posted above.
But what is not being debated is that the world will run out of oil eventually. The only question is how soon. Some people say we are currently living at the "peak" of the oil boom and that we could hit a supply crunch in just a few years. Even the most optimistic estimates are that there is only another 30 or 40 years supply. If you saw the movie "Collapse" you get kind of a dramatized version of how quickly the shit could hit the fan once this drop of oil supplies starts happening. Now granted, the guy in that movie isn't the ultimate authority on this but there are plenty of people with a lot on the line saying similar things:
"French supermajor Total S.A., announced plans in 2008 to shift their focus to nuclear energy instead of oil and gas. A Total senior vice president explained that this is because they believe oil production will peak before 2020, and they would like to diversify their position in the energy markets."
"The UK Industry Taskforce on Peak Oil and Energy Security (ITPOES) reported in late October 2008 that peak oil is likely to occur by 2013. Their report includes a chapter written by Shell corporation."
"In 2005, the United States Department of Energy published a report titled Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation, & Risk Management. Known as the Hirsch report, it stated, "The peaking of world oil production presents the U.S. and the world with an unprecedented risk management problem. As peaking is approached, liquid fuel prices and price volatility will increase dramatically, and, without timely mitigation, the economic, social, and political costs will be unprecedented. Viable mitigation options exist on both the supply and demand sides, but to have substantial impact, they must be initiated more than a decade in advance of peaking."
And just today, here's an article published in Forbes on this:
http://www.forbes.com/2010/02/11…
At some point arguing whether Al Gore photoshopped his Powerpoint slides is making you look fairly retarded in the face of warnings from these kind of folks about oil supplies grinding to a halt. The answer to both problems is the same, which is that the world needs to make the difficult transition to new energy sources, and it will need to occur within our lifetimes.