|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
 Posted - 12/11/2007 : 14:23:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
| Originally posted by Cuneiformist |
No Bill. |
How's your grammar?
| Four guys publish a study casting doubt on MMGW and the entire right wing world has a giant collective on-line orgasm. |
I don't know about the whole right wing hypothesis but I, and the piece, were referring to the scientists who agreed with those that cast doubt. |
I did a Google search of the authors and every hit was from some right-wing blog announcing it (as you have) as the final word on all of global warming science.
No, that's an article talking about the study in question.
Inhofe's ignorance of the environment is an embarrassment.
| And suddenly this head-in-the-sand crowd loves science again. |
Again? It appears that we just love different sciences. I prefer the "Unofficial" science, which is more determined by what is actually happening with the [climate] data, while you seem to prefer "Official" science driven by politics, the U.N., money and power, and Al Gore. |
I don't understand why anyone who agrees with the MGW science is somehow "driven by politics, the U.N., money and power, and Al Gore." I supposed that's the rhetorical ploy that allows right-wingers to ignore what they don't like. Much like dismissing any anti-Republican news story (no matter how true) as a result of the "liberal" media.
The journal where this study is published has also published myriad articles showing the opposite. Why you have to date ignored what they say is predictable, but nevertheless comically baffling.
| Seriously. The only thing more predictable than that is the silence from the right-wingers when climate scientists get a look at the article and investigate their claims and refute the whole study. |
The only thing more predictable then that are the failed predictions of the MMGW crowd for warming temps, unprecedented numbers of hurricanes, polar bears committing suicide etc... |
Again, your total lack of what MMGW does say is astounding. But not surprising, given where you get your news. |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 12/11/2007 14:24:33 |
 |
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2007 : 14:47:12 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Cuneiformist |
It was just an attempt at humor. Lighten up and live.
| I did a Google search of the authors and every hit was from some right-wing blog announcing it (as you have) as the final word on all of global warming science. |
You were expecting to find anti-AGW, or denier information on left-wing blogs? That is where all the AGW information is proliferated.
| I don't understand why anyone who agrees with the MGW science is somehow "driven by politics, the U.N., money and power, and Al Gore." |
I bet if someone offered you $6K/minute to give a speech on AGW you would quickly understand.
| I supposed that's the rhetorical ploy that allows right-wingers to ignore what they don't like. Much like dismissing any anti-Republican news story (no matter how true) as a result of the "liberal" media. |
So none of this activity that you describe can be associated with left-wingers and or CNN/CBS as well?
| The journal where this study is published has also published myriad articles showing the opposite. Why you have to date ignored what they say is predictable, but nevertheless comically baffling. |
I am not sure what you are getting at here.
| Again, your total lack of what MMGW does say is astounding. But not surprising, given where you get your news. |
So no one predicted rising temps, numerous and unprecedented hurricanes, and polar bears committing suicide?
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2007 : 15:09:10 [Permalink]
|
No, that is a popular-press report on the study, on a Web site that clearly embraces non-science. Reporting on the study from Science Daily is much less shrill.And as we've already seen, there appears to be only a single climate scientist in there, and he seems to be making a mistake.
Originally posted by Bill scott
Originally posted by Dave W.
Looks like he's actually a journalist and business consultant , retired. |
Which does nothing to negate his claim:
"The UN conference is a complete waste of our time and your money and we should no longer pay the slightest attention to the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,)"
The conference is a waste of time and money. Not to mention the carbon foot print it will leave. At least they are giving away free carbon credits in the door prize drawing. |
All he's doing is making a claim. I don't see any support for that claim, and so the value of the claim must rest on his being a "climate researcher," which he really isn't. I'm not going to pay attention to unevidence climate claims from plumbers or policemen, either. Why should I give this guy's claim any credence? I don't have to "negate" it, he has to support it.| Once again, not trained as a climate scientist , but that doesn't matter because his arguments fail to address his claims. |
So the global temps have went up the predicted amount or greater over the last 5 years? |
Classic. I say that his arguments don't address his claims, and you twist that around to mean that whatever you want it to mean, and ask me to defend your fabricated claim. That does nothing to negate the fact that Evans says that CO2 effects are negligible without showing how that is.| It is irrelevant what the IPCC or the climate science people say when compared to hard data such as tide gauges. |
Then stick to the science, Bill, and quit posting these propaganda pieces that rely on misplaced authority and alleged mistakes by the IPCC. You've just made "Here is a link to some of the climate scientists who support the doubt" irrelevant, too. If you want to rely on hard data, then do so, and quit giving us "look at what these people are saying!!!"| As if Al has no books or movies to finance and/or push. $6K/minute ain't bad. |
Yes, you opened the door to impeachment via profit motive, so I am free to impeach every one of your authoritative quotes with the same method. All of these people have mouths to feed and homes to repair. They all need money, and so all of their statements are questionable if it can be shown that they're making money by making those statements. Gray is obviously profit-motivated to deny AGW.| Well even if they deny AGW or not the UN policies are what scare the bajebas out of us deniers. What has the UN been involved in that they have got right? Under the guise of combating AGW they are going to over step their bounds of likes which we have yet to see. I mean seriously, if Al Gore wants to jet set the world preaching his AGW message and owning but not living in a 10,000 sq/ft home and then buy carbon credits to offset his huge carbon footprint then more power to him. I have no problem with this. What I have a problem with is the UN running wild with their new lighting rod and causing the faithful to create such insanity as the baby tax. http://tinyurl.com/2got6x And you think this has nothing to do with money? A XXXXXXX baby tax and carbon credit charge for having a kid! Wake up friend wake up |
None of this has anything to do with the hard data, it's simply an appeal to fear, doubt and uncertainty. Yes, Barry Walters is a nutcase. He's probably a nutcase without the UN. But, he has nothing to do with the UN, so freaking out about him isn't addressing your fears, it's just feeding them.Originally posted by Bill scott
Originally posted by pleco
I have no problem with a baby tax. Too many damn people on this planet already. |
Is this your opinion or were you going to referance something? |
Good grief, Bill, if you can't tell that's opinion, there may be no hope for you at all.Originally posted by Bill scott
It is hard for us deniers to accept Al's message of personal sacrifice for the cause when he grabs his check after the speech and jumps into his private gas guzzling jet and flies over his 10,000 sq/ft mansion on his way to the next presentation. |
But what do Gore's faults have to do with the hard data, Bill? You know, the actual science? The relevant information? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2007 : 15:11:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
So none of this activity that you describe can be associated with left-wingers and or CNN/CBS as well? |
"They're doing it, so I can do it too" doesn't work, Bill. It doesn't even work for children. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2007 : 15:18:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
So no one predicted rising temps, numerous and unprecedented hurricanes, and polar bears committing suicide?
|
No mention of suicidal bears, but...
| Greenland's ice sheet melted nearly 19 billion tons more than the previous high mark, and the volume of Arctic sea ice at summer's end was half what it was just four years earlier, according to new NASA satellite data obtained by The Associated Press. |
|
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 12/11/2007 15:18:52 |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2007 : 16:19:11 [Permalink]
|
Bill, you once again demonstrate your ignorance of science and your reckless haste to take up any cause that supports your position.
Your lead "climate researcher," Lord Christopher Monckton, isn't. But you didn't even bother to check, did you? Typical research on your part, Bill! This is downright dishonest of you.
Even more so than with evolution, MMGW denial is dangerous. People should be working to reverse the trends, preparing for the mass migrations and potential wars to follow coastal flooding and crop failures. MMGW is the biggest issue of our times. Ignoring or denying it will cost millions of lives. Shame on you for your dishonesty, Bill.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 12/11/2007 : 16:23:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
It was just an attempt at humor. Lighten up and live. |
Fair enough.
| I did a Google search of the authors and every hit was from some right-wing blog announcing it (as you have) as the final word on all of global warming science. |
You were expecting to find anti-AGW, or denier information on left-wing blogs? That is where all the AGW information is proliferated. |
No, I was actually wondering if any net-savvy scientists had seen it and discussed it. As of yet, it's been limited to the Freeper crowd. But I'm sure as it makes the rounds, others will pick up on it and discuss it in a more intelligent way.
| I don't understand why anyone who agrees with the MGW science is somehow "driven by politics, the U.N., money and power, and Al Gore." |
I bet if someone offered you $6K/minute to give a speech on AGW you would quickly understand. |
But that's irrelevant. The point is there are myriad real honest scientists working on this topic. So why focus on Al Gore in an attempt to belittle the argument? Unless-- here's a thought-- you don't actually have a counterargument to begin with. NOW it makes more sense.
| I supposed that's the rhetorical ploy that allows right-wingers to ignore what they don't like. Much like dismissing any anti-Republican news story (no matter how true) as a result of the "liberal" media. |
So none of this activity that you describe can be associated with left-wingers and or CNN/CBS as well? |
I think you missed my point.
| The journal where this study is published has also published myriad articles showing the opposite. Why you have to date ignored what they say is predictable, but nevertheless comically baffling. |
I am not sure what you are getting at here. |
I'm sorry. My point was that you're quick to attack the MMGW movement as something driven largely by Al Gore and UN bureaucrats and therefore some sort of hyped-up myth. But in fact, it's driven by real science. As an example, I noted that the very journal that published the study you've referred to has myriad more studies showing the opposite.
| Again, your total lack of what MMGW does say is astounding. But not surprising, given where you get your news. |
So no one predicted rising temps, numerous and unprecedented hurricanes, and polar bears committing suicide? |
Hmmm. Rising temperatures? Yes. But even the study you cite doesn't deny that temperatures are rising. Hurricanes? Not really. And as for polar bears committing suicide? Is that another joke? Or do you happen to know the special polar bear language that their suicide notes are written in? |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 12/11/2007 16:26:54 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 12/12/2007 : 02:36:00 [Permalink]
|
Here's something interesting: Clouds on the outer edge of the Earth's atmosphere are operating as an “exquisite” temperature gauge monitoring climate change.
Images from a Nasa mission into space have shown for the first time that noctilucent clouds, which are only created at certain temperatures, appear to be increasing in frequency and extent.
The "night-shining" clouds can be viewed from Earth, but the new satellite images show a global overview of the clouds enabling scientists to measure them.
Build-up of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane in the upper atmosphere may be responsible for the cloud changes, scientists said.
Increased carbon dioxide cools the upper atmosphere and makes it easier for ice crystals to form the "polar mesospheric" clouds.
"The clouds are an exquisite thermometer," said Scott Bailey, from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
|
I don't know enough about the science of this to comment, but on the surface it would appear that indications abound almost everywhere you look, and in the short, geologically speaking, term that ain't good.
The times they are a'changin' and not for the better, especally if you consider the natural factors that have influenced Earth's climate for some billions of years. Added to the gaseous sludge that we've been putting into the atmosphere for the last couple hundred years and you have a recipe for a potential/probable disaster.
And yet, in our stupidity, we play politics with it.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2007 : 04:15:45 [Permalink]
|
pleco wrote: | I have no problem with a baby tax. Too many damn people on this planet already. |
I have no problem with talking about population control, but this is an area which requires extreme sensitivity to human rights. A baby tax is an absurd and cruel concept. Absurd because most of the people having more than one or two kids are already poor cannot afford the tax. So what, we're going to put poor people into debt? Brilliant idea. Cruel because the only ways to enforce the tax would obviously create much greater hardship on families which are already experiencing financial difficulty. Seriously, this is such a stupid idea, I'm shocked that anyone educated suggested it.
Anyway, Bill, your bringing it up was just a distraction anyway. All you did was fish some dipshit suggestion from one scientist out of the news pool. A suggestion, btw, that was unpopular and won't be taken any time soon. How does bringing up this baby tax support your argument? If global climate change is real and going to be bad for humans, then obviously our huge numbers are going to be a problem. Hell, if our numbers keep growing, they will be a problem regardless of climate since the earth has limited resources. Just because the issue of overpopulation is a difficult one, likely to clash with concepts of human rights, doesn't mean we can just ignore it indefinitely. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Halcyon Dayz
New Member
Netherlands
27 Posts |
 Posted - 12/12/2007 : 04:26:45 [Permalink]
|
Population growth is hardly a problem in countries where the tax services are organised enough to actually implement such a tax.
And in the Third World it is apparently higher income that makes people choose to have fewer kids.
And the poor are to poor to be taxed.
Very stupid idea. |
An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it. -- Don Marquis
"The universe is a strange, practically incomprehensible place. But that is how things are, and no amount of wishing that things are really the way we perceive them will change that." - The Black Cat |
| Edited by - Halcyon Dayz on 12/12/2007 04:27:21 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 12/12/2007 : 04:32:19 [Permalink]
|
It might be a boon to the contraceptive and the Plan B makers, though.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2007 : 05:24:16 [Permalink]
|
My concept of a baby tax was not to start taxing poor families that already have multiple children. I was thinking more along the lines that if you want to have a kid, and you already have one, then you would have to pay a "fee"...along the lines of what the Chinese supposedly do.
But such an idea would only really work with proper sex education and prolific birth control. Otherwise you would have "forced" abortions if someone got pregnant accidentally and could not afford to pay.
Of course, in America people would have a fit and start screaming about individual freedoms and what not.
Like I said, there are too many people on this planet, and not enough resources, and the Western world consumes most of them. Drastic measures are going to have to be taken, especially if and when those resources are made even more scarce by MMGW.
|
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 12/12/2007 05:24:57 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2007 : 07:30:06 [Permalink]
|
Sooner or later, our population will decline. Either we will control it or Nature will do it for us. I remind that Nature's methods of accomplishing these things are a lot less tidy than what we could do voluntarily, had we the will.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2007 : 20:47:46 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| Then stick to the science, Bill, and quit posting these propaganda pieces that rely on misplaced authority and alleged mistakes by the IPCC. |
Ok sure. Personally my biggest bewilderment is that this crowd seems to have totally ruled out any chance at all that the overall earth's average temperature rising a ½ of a degree over 50 or 100 years, or whatever the number is, is not at all a natural occurrence and part of the grand scheme of the many cycles the earth has went through in her storied past. I mean if you accept the “official” scientific version of the history of the earth which most of us learned in HS then you would accept the fact that the earth has went through some tremendous fluctuations and climate changes in her 4.5 billion year history. Ice age anyone? I mean heck there was a time when the earth did not even exist, but, somehow, sometime, someway, it began to exist as one big primordial sea. Then land began to appear and it was believed to be mostly tropical, then it got very cold and went into an ice age, then it got warm again and then it got cold again and then… And somewhere in there the dinosaurs roamed the earth, but then the climate changed yet again and they were exterminated. And so it went for billions of years the fluctuation and changes of mother earth as she evolved into her present day creation.
So we are told by “official” science that over a period of 4.5 billion years, or so, the earth has fluctuated and evolved through what would have to have been millions of different climate cycles and changes through out the history of mother earth and up to the present. So imagine if you will a timeline representing the 4.5 billion years of mother earth's history and a graph on that timeline representing the average temps and the way that red line would be up and down like a ship at sea being tossed around in a great storm. Now we have many of the same people who buy into this “official” scientific model of tremendous climate change as the earth evolved over 4.5 billion years focusing in on one snap shot of time and going ape$hit over a ½ a degree of fluctuation over a 100 year span, or whatever the official number is, and then brushing off their own “official” scientific model of tremendous climate changes over billions of years when asked why that could not be a reasonable explanation for any slight warming that we might observe?!?!?!?!?!
Once everyone accepts that the sky is falling we are told that Al Gore and the UN might still be able to save us, but, it is going to take major sacrifice, oh, and also major taxes are going to have to be levied and paid pronto. The UN will attempt to tax the snot out of any business, or developed country, they see fit, as will their own government, all in the name of AGW. Oh, and non-developed countries, they will have to stay non-developed, and probably will have to pay some AGW taxes as well.
It all reminds me of a phrase my dad, who was an avid fisherman, used to repeat to me when I was child, “Hook, line and sinker.”
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 12/12/2007 : 21:47:54 [Permalink]
|
| Bill, before going on it's worth asking: if some of us walked you through (in a non-hostile manner) the main issues, would you at least be willing to change your mind? If so, then let us know. If not, then it's not worth getting into. You have flaws in your assumptions, and even though I've tried to address it several times, you insistence of making Al Gore and the UN as the main drivers of the science suggests you'd rather live in a fantasy world of windmills that you can happily fight with. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
An international team of MMGW deniers (scientists)
