BBC: What Happened to Global Warming? - Page 13 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-28-2009, 05:50 PM   #181
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 05:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
So let me get this straight...

A bunch of marxists set out a plan, then bullied a few scientists(because only a minority believe) into making up climate change so that they can take over the world?

I needed a good laugh, thanks...
Almost right. More like researchers worked with the U.N. (full of socialists) to produce studies that guaranteed funding, because socialists would like to create a world bureaucracy as posted in that prior video. You should read more on Maurice Strong. Since I'm Canadian I know him, but he was a big part of the IPCC and as I quoted him in a prior article he's not very impressed with the ballot box.

On another note, here is someone very interested in the meeting in Copenhagen:

YouTube - Climate change scam to tax and control

Though I would go farther than him and ask how the medieval warming period doesn't exist and yet there are viking graves under the permafrost. Last I knew it would be very hard to dig graves or farm in permafrost.

Here's some more on Australians worried about increased energy bills:

YouTube - Climate crunch: David Bellamy on global warming fraud

Here's more on what bothers the skeptics:

My Top 10 Annoyances in the Climate Change Debate � Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

Quote:
My Top 10 Annoyances in the Climate Change Debate
November 28th, 2009 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
Well, maybe not my top 10…but the first ten that I thought of.

1. The term “climate change” itself. Thirty years ago, the term “climate change” would have meant natural climate change, which is what climate scientists mostly studied before that time. Today, it has come to mean human-caused climate change. The public, and especially the media, now think that “climate change” implies WE are responsible for it. Mother Nature, not Al Gore, invented real climate change.

2. “Climate change denier”. A first cousin to the first annoyance. Again, thirty years ago, “climate change denier” would have meant someone who denied that the Medieval Warm Period ever happened. Or that the Little Ice Age ever happened. What a kook fringe thing to believe that would have been! And now, those of us who still believe in natural climate change are called “climate change deniers”?? ARGHH.

3. The appeal to peer-reviewed and published research. I could go on about this for pages. Yes, it is important to have scientific research peer-reviewed and published. But as the Climategate e-mails have now exposed (and what many scientists already knew), we skeptics of human-caused climate change have “peers” out there who have taken it upon themselves to block our research from being published whenever possible. We know there are editors of scientific journals who assist in this by sending our papers to these gatekeepers for the purpose of killing the paper. We try not to complain too much when it happens because it is difficult to prove motivation. I believe the day is approaching when it will be time to make public the evidence of biased peer review.

4. Appeal to authority. This is the last refuge of IPCC scientists. Even when we skeptics get research published, it is claimed that our research is contradicted by other research the IPCC has encouraged, helped to get funded, and cherry-picked to support its case. This is dangerous for the progress of science. If the majority opinion of scientists was always assumed to be correct, then most major scientific advances would not have occurred. The appeal to authority is also a standard propaganda technique.

5. Unwillingness to debate. I have lectured to many groups where the organizers could not find anyone from the IPCC side who would present the IPCC’s side of the story. I would be happy to debate any of the IPCC experts on the central issues of human-caused versus natural climate change, and feedbacks in the climate system. They know where to find me. (For the most common tactic used by the IPCC in a debate, see annoyance #4.)

6. A lack of common sense. Common sense can be misleading, of course. But when there is considerable uncertainty, sometimes it is helpful to go ahead and use a little anyway. Example: It is well known that the net effect of clouds is to cool the Earth in response to radiant heating by the sun. But when it comes to global warming, all climate models do just the opposite…change clouds in ways that amplify radiative warming. While this is theoretically possible, it is critical to future projections of global warming that the reasons why models do this be thoroughly understood. Don’t believe it just because group think within the climate modeling community has decided it should be so.

7. Use of climate models as truth. Because there are not sufficient high-quality, globally-distributed, and long term observations of climate fluctuations to study and better understand the climate system with, computerized climate models are now regarded as truth. The modelers’ belief that climate models represent truth is evident from the language they use: climate models are not “tested” with real data, but instead “validated”. The implication is clear: if the data do not agree with the models, it must be the data’s fault.

8. Claims that climate models have been tested. A hallmark of a good theory is that it should predict something which, upon further investigation, turns out to be correct. To my knowledge, climate models have not yet forecasted anything of significance. And even if they did, models are ultimately being relied upon to forecast global warming (aka ‘climate change’). As far as I can tell, there is no good way to test them in this regard. And please don’t tell me they can now replicate the seasons quite well. Even the public could predict the seasons before there were climate models. Predicting future warming (or cooling) is slightly more difficult, but not by much: a flip a coin will be correct 50% of the time.

9. The claim that the IPCC is unbiased. The IPCC was formed for the explicit purpose of building the case for global warming being our fault, not for investigating the possibility that it is just part of a natural cycle in the climate system. Their accomplices in government have bought off the scientific community for the purpose of achieving specific policy goals.

10. The claim that reducing CO2 emissions is the right thing to do anyway. Oh, really? What if life on Earth (which requires CO2 for its existence) is actually benefiting from more CO2? Nature is always changing anyway…why must we always assume that every single change that humans cause is necessarily a bad thing? Even though virtually all Earth scientists believe this, too, it is not science, but religion. I’m all for religion…but not when it masquerades as science.
Ed Begley Jr.'s favorite term was "Peer review!", now another guy thinks that "George Bush" is a special term that will make Foxnews agree with AGW.

YouTube - CLIMATEGATE! Fox RIPS Global Warming Advocate! 1000's of Emails / Documents Reveal FRAUD!
__________________

__________________
purpleoscar is offline  
Old 11-28-2009, 06:16 PM   #182
Refugee
 
Bluer White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,882
Local Time: 07:24 AM
Quote:
Today, there is a name for the political doctrine that rejoices in scarcity of everything except government. The name is environmentalism.
- George Will



RealClearPolitics - Oil's Expanding Frontiers
__________________

__________________
Bluer White is online now  
Old 11-28-2009, 06:18 PM   #183
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,655
Local Time: 06:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Almost right. More like researchers worked with the U.N. (full of socialists) to produce studies that guaranteed funding, because socialists would like to create a world bureaucracy as posted in that prior video.
This just shows that you have absolutely NO grasp on this subject. You've been fed paranoia conspiracies and since they benefit your financial wants and you had no appreciation for science to begin with you fell for them hook line and sinker.

You do realize this is not a new theory and that there is research being done outside of the UN? Right? I mean you have to know this... right? This is what I was trying to get you to explain to me earlier, how did those scientist get affected? Did your socialist monster bribe them?
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 11-30-2009, 10:01 PM   #184
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
the iron horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: in a glass of CheerWine
Posts: 3,251
Local Time: 07:24 AM
The climage change fraud
__________________
the iron horse is offline  
Old 11-30-2009, 11:28 PM   #185
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 06:24 AM
If I'd been told the past 10 years that scientists and their models predict with 100% certainty that a large comet will crash into the earth in our lifetimes, only to recently find out it was all either a hoax or wildly speculative... I'd be frickin jumping for joy.

Telling that we've heard no such sentiments from the Climate Change crowd.

Don't you at least hope we're right? Wouldn't that be good news?
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 12-01-2009, 07:37 AM   #186
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,655
Local Time: 06:24 AM
Saying it's a hoax just shows you know very little about science, let alone other things in the world, maybe speculative could be a word you use, but it still shows a lack of understanding.

Do I hope you're right? Yeah, wouldn't it be nice to believe we live in an indistructible planet? Wouldn't it be nice to believe that no matter what we do, or how irreponsible we are it doesn't matter. Can someone sell me house that's like that?
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 12-01-2009, 12:26 PM   #187
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 05:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
This just shows that you have absolutely NO grasp on this subject. You've been fed paranoia conspiracies and since they benefit your financial wants and you had no appreciation for science to begin with you fell for them hook line and sinker.
I could easily point your comment towards the paranoia of climate change propaganda and talk about industries, governments, and politicians that want to benefit their financial wants from cap and trade.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
You do realize this is not a new theory and that there is research being done outside of the UN? Right? I mean you have to know this... right? This is what I was trying to get you to explain to me earlier, how did those scientist get affected? Did your socialist monster bribe them?
I already answered this question. Socialist monsters want to use the appeal to authority to justify powergrabs. Climate modellers want continued funding. If they say there is no problem then the climate change people have to find other jobs. I already posted the swindle documentary where they talk about how climate science ballooned over the years. These emails are the beginning. When science journals start putting in skeptics in their journals and when skeptics are allowed in the peer-review process then I will say that things have improved.

Climategate begs the question: “is peer review in need of change”? � Watts Up With That?

Quote:
If the practitioners of peer-review begin to act like members of an exclusive club controlling who and what gets published, the risk is run that the true course of science gets sidetracked. Even folks with the best intentions can be wrong. Having the process too tightly controlled can end up setting things back much further than a more loosely controlled process which is better at being self-correcting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Do I hope you're right? Yeah, wouldn't it be nice to believe we live in an indistructible planet? Wouldn't it be nice to believe that no matter what we do, or how irreponsible we are it doesn't matter.
It would be nice if we could do without conventional energy that produces C02. Can someone give me a technology as cheap as oil that can replace it? If our struggling economy fails to grow (real growth not inflation) how will we find capital to invest in new efficient technologies? It's like people don't understand you can kill the goose that lays the golden egg.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline  
Old 12-01-2009, 01:24 PM   #188
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,655
Local Time: 06:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
I already answered this question. Socialist monsters want to use the appeal to authority to justify powergrabs. Climate modellers want continued funding. If they say there is no problem then the climate change people have to find other jobs. I already posted the swindle documentary where they talk about how climate science ballooned over the years. These emails are the beginning. When science journals start putting in skeptics in their journals and when skeptics are allowed in the peer-review process then I will say that things have improved.
I think it's funny that you think this answers anything I asked...

This was probably the simplest question asked of you in this whole debate and you still had to walk around it...
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 12-01-2009, 05:46 PM   #189
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 10:24 PM
Quote:
No wonder opinion polls show a majority of the population are sceptical about global warming. Just scanning the papers, the internet or watching TV is enough to convince anyone it’s just the usual apocalyptic hype. And, if they want to dig deeper into their own disbelief, there are shelfloads of books to give them a hand. There’s Nigel Lawson, ex-chancellor of the exchequer, with An Appeal to Reason. There’s Scared to Death by Christopher Booker and Richard North. There’s Cool It by Bjorn Lomborg. There was even a very serious documentary on Channel 4 called The Great Global Warming Swindle with some serious-looking science guys pouring cold water on the warming atmosphere.

Just a couple of weeks reading and watching and you can be out there, crushing dinner-party eco-warriors with devastating arguments based on cold, hard facts. You will be a stern, hard-headed denialist, your iron jaw set firmly against the tree-hugging, soft-headed warmists in their irritating hats.

That was me, once. I thought global warming was all bog-standard, apocalyptic nonsense when it first emerged in the 1980s. People, I knew, like nothing better than an End-of-the-World story to give their lives meaning. I also knew that science is dynamic. Big ideas rise and fall. Once the Earth was the centre of the universe. Then it wasn’t. Once Isaac Newton had completed physics. Then he hadn’t. Once there was going to be a new ice age. Then there wasn’t.

Armed with such historic reversals, I poured scorn on under-educated warmists. Scientists with access to the microphone, I pointed out, had got so much so wrong so often. This was yet another case of clever people, who should have known better, running around screaming, “End of the World! End of the World!” and of less-clever people finding reasons to tell everybody else why they were bad. And then I made a terrible mistake. I started questioning my instinct, which was to disbelieve every scare story on principle.

I exposed myself to any journalist’s worst nightmare — very thoughtful, intelligent people.
Global warming is real - Times Online
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 12-01-2009, 07:48 PM   #190
Refugee
 
Bluer White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,882
Local Time: 07:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
I could easily point your comment towards the paranoia of climate change propaganda and talk about industries, governments, and politicians that want to benefit their financial wants from cap and trade.

I already answered this question. Socialist monsters want to use the appeal to authority to justify powergrabs. Climate modellers want continued funding. If they say there is no problem then the climate change people have to find other jobs. I already posted the swindle documentary where they talk about how climate science ballooned over the years. These emails are the beginning. When science journals start putting in skeptics in their journals and when skeptics are allowed in the peer-review process then I will say that things have improved.
.
You're absolutely right, and doing a good job arguing your position in this thread. The green lobby has gone well beyond $cience...it's dogma now.

Take a look at the pie-in-the-sky Waxman-Markey bill in the House. A ridiculous standard and damaging to an economy.
__________________
Bluer White is online now  
Old 12-02-2009, 08:06 AM   #191
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,655
Local Time: 06:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluer White View Post
You're absolutely right, and doing a good job arguing your position in this thread. The green lobby has gone well beyond $cience...it's dogma now.
One can argue the means to which we react to the science all day long, sure. But do you really think he's doing a good job arguing his position? Do you believe the science wasn't there before some Marxists got their hands on it and then saw opportunity to take over the world, so they basically made the whole thing up? Really?
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 12-02-2009, 03:48 PM   #192
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 06:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Do you believe the science wasn't there before some Marxists got their hands on it and then saw opportunity to take over the world, so they basically made the whole thing up? Really?
Which science would that be? The science that warned of a coming Ice Age, the science of our imminent demise due to Global Warming, or the current science of vague and subjective Climate Change?
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 12-02-2009, 04:32 PM   #193
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 05:24 AM
In the information age, it will only be a matter of time before the myth of global warming is sidelined.



<>
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 12-02-2009, 04:35 PM   #194
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 07:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Which science would that be? The science that warned of a coming Ice Age, the science of our imminent demise due to Global Warming, or the current science of vague and subjective Climate Change?


let's pretend for a moment, that there is no man-made global warming.

what difference should that make? isn't energy efficiency a good thing? isn't the pollution belched into the atmosphere a bad thing? wouldn't it be a good idea to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels so we can pull out of the most insane region of the globe? isn't conservation in and of itself a good thing? isn't it the responsible thing to do to leave as little of an footprint as possible? isn't it a good thing to simply be responsible stewards of the earth in order to preserve our own health? isn't being wasteful and gluttonous a bad thing?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 12-02-2009, 04:58 PM   #195
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,655
Local Time: 06:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Which science would that be? The science that warned of a coming Ice Age, the science of our imminent demise due to Global Warming, or the current science of vague and subjective Climate Change?
See, you're still politicizing it... For these extremes never existed, they're just perversions from those on the right that just don't understand science.
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
2008 International Conference on Climate Change purpleoscar Free Your Mind 19 04-17-2009 07:56 PM
New York Times: Cool the Hype MaxFisher Free Your Mind Archive 17 03-18-2007 06:09 PM
If You Wear A ONE White Band.... Jamila Free Your Mind Archive 18 05-27-2005 07:46 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com