Global Warming?
- Started
- Last post
- 223 Responses
- akrokdesign0
so if you do not believe in global warming, what's the option?
- designbot0
^what do you mean?
- ukit0
designbot, how do you think polls and surveys work. How do you think we get polls on the Presidential race, for instance? Exact same methodology.
- KwesiJ0
i think one of the alternate theories is that its a big energy conspiracy...who gains from inventing something that is forcing people STOP consuming is beyond me
- think carbon credits....designbot
- agreeakrokdesign
- carbon credit...RIGHT! that really big compare to the rest.akrokdesign
- that was just one example.designbot
- First and foremost it's a political tool. Then we can talk business; hybrid cars, recycling, climate quotes (Kyoto) etc..Lillebo
- ukit0
http://www.fair.org/activism/sto…
John Stossel plays by a different set of rules than other journalists, as demonstrated most recently by "Tampering with Nature," a one-hour special that aired on ABC on June 29.
Taking advantage of the unusual leeway the network gives him, ABC's favorite free-market zealot used the special to attack environmentalists, who are caricatured as "preachers of doom and gloom" whose extreme anti-technology views would have us all "running around naked, hungry for food, maybe killing a rabbit with a rock, then dying young, probably before age 40."
To back up the skeptics' claims, Stossel presents some deceptive evidence: "You may have heard that 1,600 scientists signed a letter warning of 'devastating consequences.' But I bet you hadn't heard that 17,000 scientists signed a petition saying there's 'no convincing evidence' that greenhouse gases will disrupt the Earth's climate."
The implication is that 10 times as many scientists question global warming. What Stossel doesn't note is that while the first petition was circulated by a group well-respected in the scientific community, the second petition has been famously discredited.
The first, smaller petition came from the Union of Concerned Scientists and its signatories included 110 Nobel laureates, including 104 of the 178 living Nobel Prize winners in the sciences, along with 60 U.S. National Medal of Science winners. The latter petition was a project of the George C. Marshall Institute, whose chair, Frederick Seitz, is also affiliated with the Global Climate Coalition (an industry group calling itself the "voice for business in the global warming debate"), in conjunction with the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine, a lesser-known group whose leader, wrote columnist Molly Ivins, is a biochemist who "specializes in home schooling and building nuclear shelters" (Los Angeles Times, 8/17/98).
Though OISM's signatories did include reputable scientists, it also included dentists, nutritionists and others with no expertise in climatalogy; the only requirement for signing on was a bachelors degree in science. In fact, OISM's screening process was so lax that for a time the list also included a number of gag names added by environmentalists, including Ginger Spice and Michael J. Fox. The OISM petition also came under fire for being deceptively packaged: The petition was accompanied by an article purporting to debunk global warming that was formatted to look as though it had been published in the journal of the respected National Academy of Sciences. The resemblance was so close that the NAS issued a public statement that the OISM petition "does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy."
- john stossel is a cunt anyway. anyone who listens to a guy with a stache like that is an ass.Gucci
- designbot0
^So perhaps there are some people on the list that are unqualified to be on there. Even so, the number is so much greater even if only 50% could be considered legitimate that is still a huge number in comparison.
- designbot0
Al Gore certainly wouldn't qualify under these credentials to sign either.....yet millions of people believe in his documentary.
- he speak on the behalf of the problem. same as you speak for the 17,200 what ever.akrokdesign
- lowimpakt0
I think you're just being spurious for the sake of it.
The list of names has been shown to be bullshit. You won't provide any data to back up the claims in the charts you pulled from a dodgy paper that hasn't been peer reviewed or written by a climate scientist.
Having a list of names without being able to account for their area of expertise or show any of their published peer reviewed work is not worth jack in the real world.
There is no denying that scientists the world over dispute the consensus on climate change but until they can produce evidence or even robust theories to support their claims then they will be ignored.
- designbot0
I don't see how you can make such claims and blow it off that easily. Is it because you have "proved" it to be false, or because it stands in conflict with your current beliefs? Would you apply the same litmus test to the con side?
How about this one:
http://www.reuters.com/article/p…
Made it all the way to the senate floor, is this bs as well?
- designbot0
"31,000 scientists, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s" signed it....still a much larger numbers than Al Gore used to back up his claims.
- lowimpakt0
what has Al gore got to do with this?
OK - lets PRETEND that all the names on that list are real. How does a list of names prove or disprove the content of peer-reviewed academic and scientific research?
- It doesn't. But the research you are speaking of is no proof either. They are only interpreting the data they have.designbot
- And if the numbers in opposition are really this large, doesn't that raise some red flags? Afterall, they are trying to put policies in place based off this info.designbot
- place base off this information.designbot
- dog_opus0
I'm with designbot (I think) in the acknowledgment that there is substantial disagreement within the scientific community, and that this should be remembered when considering the hyper-emotional hysteria that this issue is usually framed in.
I personally don't know whether we are experiencing anthropogenic climate change, a natural climatic process, or a combination of the two. There is conflicting evidence the average person doesn't have a lot of time to sort through the hype and data. I'm a skeptic (in all matters), so I honestly can't make a factual deduction with my limited knowledge. I think that the politicization of the matter has made it all but impossible for the average person to make an informed rational conclusion. I think it's best to err on the side of caution (and health) with respect and care for our environment and our fellow living creatures. (Incidentally, I'm more concerned with the massive threats to biodiversity that we've been posing for some time now.)
I do, however, feel that the left part of the political spectrum has co-opted this issue in the service of their sociopolitical agenda. There is always a leftist war on something, from Wilson, to Roosevelt, and on up to today. It's a cheap and transparent ploy to utilize a crisis – real or imagined, it doesn't really matter – to galvanize public opinion around their platform. Of course, the right side reacts accordingly, and the public is left with the unfortunate phenomenon of a vital issue reduced to simplistic partisan bickering. By the way, it's naive to believe that politicians on the left aren't amenable to the same corruption – for identical or different causes – that the right is.
It's all very perplexing, I think, and it's difficult to follow when you have the rest of your life's requirements and interests to contend with. Again, I feel it's best to err on the side of caution, and dispense with our oil dependence, adopt more sustainable business practices, and try to cut through the propaganda on both sides.
- it's hard to know who to believe when anyone can have a hidden agendalocustsloth
- "There is always a leftist war on something"
Yes. War on Drugs. War on Terror. Please do continue..TheBlueOne - well said. I completely agree.designbot
- locustsloth: Yup. TBO: Thanks for not calling me a dickhead this time!dog_opus
- locustsloth0
This video (posted in another Global Warming thread) makes more sense to me than any poll or consensus of scientists
- Great video, locustsloth – thanks! Common sense is not as common as we might like it to be.dog_opus
- mrdobolina0
pollution is bad, what is the argument?
- Yup, pollution sucks. It even bothers me to see scrap paper thrown on the ground in the woods.dog_opus
- KwesiJ0
the problem with GOre isn't if global wamring is a reality its that he's just a media man now selling movies and books and public speaches and not doing anything about alternative energy or transportation etc. He's a hugly powerful man who could jump start an entire sustainable energy industry but instead he's just the global warming guy.
- actually, he's part owner of a carbon trading company. he stands to profit hugely if carbons caps are put in place.monNom
- these guys apparently:
http://www.generatio…monNom - thats just politics in general.akrokdesign
- WORK = PROFITS. right or ..you like to work for free.akrokdesign
- designbot0
We will never be even close to pollution free, so I suppose if you buy into everything that is being said on global warming we are headed towards inevitable doom as all the efforts in the world can't change this.
- so fuck it then, right? what are you trying to say?mrdobolina
- I knew you would say that. Nope, that is not what I am trying to say. I'm saying that if you buy into everything currently being said there is no hope whatsoever anyway.designbot
- said that there is no hope whatsoever anyway.designbot
- the first part of your post doesn't relate to the second at all, "this statEment, SO "That Statement"mrdobolina
- mrdobolina0
it's difficult to hear global warming deniers and not see people fighting for pollution. I know it is just me, but it is the argument people take. Status quo is to keep the same levels or increase levels of pollution. Who could really advocate that? Oh yeah, lots of people.
- ********0
global warming is a scam just to get us to pay more taxes.
- aka I love pollution.mrdobolina
- eh. can you be more wrong than that.akrokdesign
- designbot0
What pisses me off more than anything is the people that have this idea that humans are some sort of inconvenience to the planet. They find something wrong in everything we do. They think the planet is overpopulated and that people should stop having kids. This stems from core beliefs like why are we here? If we are created beings, who do we think the earth was created for? What about the resources that are here, who were they created for? If you believe that the universe simply came into existence out of nothing, then I suppose you would have a different take....and therein lies the core of issues like this. Also it is disturbing when you can see that there is a political agenda attached, it makes the issue even more suspect. Pollution is bad yes, we should do what we can to make things better yes. But taking huge steps and instituting policies based on certain scientists interpretation of data seems like jumping the gun, especially when they can't even seem to agree amongst themselves (as shown in other posts in this thread). I think we are nieve and perhaps even arrogant that we think we effect the planet as much as we do.
- did you really bring up religion just now?mrdobolina
- Should CFC's been regulated then? Where's the logic?Mimio
- everyone has a core belief system that inevitably branches out into all the areas of their life and decisions...big or small.designbot
- some people's core beliefs don't involve an old white guy with a beard on a cloud.mrdobolina
- yeah this alone disqualifies you from the argumentspifflink
- mrdobolina0
all initiatives from fighting global warming are to pollute less. So if pollution is bad, what exactly are you against?