BBC: What Happened to Global Warming? - Page 18 - 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 12-08-2009, 06:03 PM   #256
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 12:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by phillyfan26 View Post
Rush's argument is absurd. Just like pretty much anything else the man says.
You might try taking on the premise.

Do you believe mankind could prevent an ice age?

What is the "normal" temperature of the earth to judge whether we should be concerned about a warming or cooling trend?
__________________

__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 12-08-2009, 06:41 PM   #257
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 12:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Do you believe mankind could prevent an ice age?
This is the wrong question to be asking, this is why Rush and some of you guys are laughable... Your approach to science is

The premise is that if it is manmade then can't it me slowed down and prevented by man?

So these questions don't even make sense in this debate...
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 12-08-2009, 07:13 PM   #258
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 12:30 PM
What is the "normal" temperature of the earth to judge whether we should be concerned about a warming or cooling trend?
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 12-08-2009, 08:01 PM   #259
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 04:30 AM
A review of global warming denialism
Quote:
Question: What’s the difference between a computer salesman and a used car salesman?

Answer: A used car salesman knows when he’s lying.

I was reminded of this old joke when reading Jim Hoggan’s book “Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming” on the campaign to obscure what science tells us about global warming: it’s happening and we’re causing it. Hoggan tells us about the cast of characters involved in this campaign and I found myself classifying them into two categories: those who don’t know they are lying and those that do.

In the first category we have Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, who has delusions of grandeur. He really is a Viscount, but he also claims to be a member of the House of Lords (he isn’t) and to have won a share in the Nobel Peace Prize (he didn’t). Monckton has a degree in classics and no training or experience in science or mathematics but he churns out papers full of equations (which he misinterprets) and graphs (which are wrong) that purport to show that global warming isn’t happening. Monckton recently gave a speech with 2 million viewings on youtube where he declared that that Copenhagen treaty will institute a COMMUNIST WORLD GOVERNMENT. In short, Monckton is a crank.

Now, if Monckton’s pet theory was, say, that the moon was made of cheese or the sun was made of iron nobody would pay any attention to him. But because his theory involves global warming denial, he is now chief policy advisor at a think tank called the Science and Public Policy Institute and touted as an expert on climate science. Hoggan describes a whole gaggle of such think tanks, all with fancy titles and funded by the fossil fuel industry. None of them produce science to be published in peer-reviewed journals but rather opinions than can be published in opeds or quotes for journalists to balance their stories and match a quote from a scientist at a research institute about their data shows global warming is a problem with a quote from a “policy analyst” from a think tank saying that no it isn’t.

Which brings us to the second category of person described — someone who knows when he is lying. An example of this sort of person is Steve Milloy. While Monckton wil say things that are outrageously false and outright crazy, Milloy is much more careful. Instead of telling everybody that cigarette smoke is good for you, he will raise lots of plausible sounding (but poorly founded) objections to studies that show that it is harmful. Milloy would raise these objections at his website junkscience.com, which pretended to be a place devoted to debunking bad science, but actually was devoted to debunking the notion that cigarette smoke was harmful. You won’t be surprised to learn that Milloy was secretly funded by tobacco companies.

The same techniques used by tobacco companies to obscure the science that shows that cigarette smoke is bad for you is now being used to cover up the fact that human activities are warming the planet. In fact the same people and think tanks that argued against a link between cigarettes and disease are now arguing that against a link between carbon dioxide and global warming. They don’t have convince people that there is no link — all they have to do make it appear as if there is a scientific controversy. Journalists help them in this task by seeking sources to provide a balance of opposing views rather than seeking sources with expertise in the subject area.

Too recent to be included in Hoggan’s book is the latest ugly turn in the campaign against climate science. A server in the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia was broken into and code and many emails were stolen and posted on the net.

By any objective standard the stolen data shows no evidence of any scientific misconduct, but private emails are particularly vulnerable to be taking out of context since the context is all previous communications between the two parties. The anti-science campaigners were therefore able to find emails they could misrepresent as proof of fraud. For example, in one email Phil Jones said that he had used a “trick” to “hide the decline”. This was taken out of context as meaning a decline in global temperatures, i.e., that he has dishonestly covered up evidence that global warming wasn’t happening. But in science “trick” just means a technique, and other emails make it clear that the “decline” wasn’t a decline in temperatures at all, but in tree ring density, a proxy for temperature. Before 1960 tree density tracks temperature quite well, but after 1960 temperatures go up while tree ring density goes down, so tree ring density stops being a good proxy for temperature. All Jones was doing was trying to avoid misleading readers into thinking that temperatures had declined after 1960 when they had not.

But none of this matters to the anti-science campaigners. Monckton claims that the emails were proof of fraud and has called for the criminal prosecution of the CRU scientists. Milloy denies that the emails were stolen, instead claiming that they were released because of a FOIA request and supports a call for Al Gore’s Oscar to be rescinded.

Regardless of what Monckton, Milloy and co say or do, the planet will continue to warm. Reality will eventually make their campaign untenable, but the danger is that they might succeed in delaying action to mitigate global warming.
Firedoglake FDL Book Salon Welcomes James Hoggan, Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 12-08-2009, 09:56 PM   #260
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 01:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Do you believe mankind could prevent an ice age?
That's not what the question should be. The question should be "Do you believe mankind can cause an ice age?"
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 12-08-2009, 10:31 PM   #261
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 12:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by phillyfan26 View Post
That's not what the question should be. The question should be "Do you believe mankind can cause an ice age?"
Nuclear winter if I remember the theory. Would that be preferable to a warmer earth?
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 12-08-2009, 11:08 PM   #262
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 12:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Nuclear winter if I remember the theory. Would that be preferable to a warmer earth?
These are almost as bad as your gay marriage arguments.

This one doesn't work, so let's try this one, this one sucks, so let's try this one, etc, etc, etc...

I see a pattern.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 12-08-2009, 11:53 PM   #263
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 01:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Nuclear winter if I remember the theory. Would that be preferable to a warmer earth?
What's preferable is that we lessen our negative impact, regardless of which direction that takes us temperature-wise.
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 12-09-2009, 03:25 AM   #264
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 12:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
These are almost as bad as your gay marriage arguments.
Right. No reason whatsoever to doubt any of the statements, actions or motives of anyone, at any level, arguing for climate change legislation or that the science is settled or trumpeting the coming apocalypse if we fail to act right now. None whatsoever.

Which can only mean one thing. OMG, I'm a greenophobe.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 12-09-2009, 09:09 AM   #265
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 12:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Right. No reason whatsoever to doubt any of the statements, actions or motives of anyone, at any level, arguing for climate change legislation or that the science is settled or trumpeting the coming apocalypse if we fail to act right now. None whatsoever.

Which can only mean one thing. OMG, I'm a greenophobe.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying

My point is, at least try and debate it in an intelligent way. The conservative means of debating these two subjects is to throw anything they can at the wall hoping something will stick.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 12-09-2009, 01:48 PM   #266
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 01:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Right. No reason whatsoever to doubt any of the statements, actions or motives of anyone, at any level, arguing for climate change legislation or that the science is settled or trumpeting the coming apocalypse if we fail to act right now. None whatsoever.

Which can only mean one thing. OMG, I'm a greenophobe.
The inherent flaw in Rush's argument was that his ice age example wasn't caused by humans. His example was, "Can humans pollute the Earth to save it?" Which is absurd and illogical when discussing an issue that has to do with humans polluting the earth and needing to cut down doing so.
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 12-09-2009, 02:12 PM   #267
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 11:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by phillyfan26 View Post
The inherent flaw in Rush's argument was that his ice age example wasn't caused by humans. His example was, "Can humans pollute the Earth to save it?" Which is absurd and illogical when discussing an issue that has to do with humans polluting the earth and needing to cut down doing so.
The problem is that there is no policy that can reduce C02 increases at the forseeable future so we are faced with a cliff where rich people are telling the rest of the population to jump first. Cap and trade has not and will not decrease C02 unless we go heavily into nuclear or find some other cheaper alternative (which doesn't exist yet). Having a carbon diet (especially in a recession) has its moral implications as well. Or we can shut down coal plants and eliminate the middle class. Humans are part of the environment.

Environmentalists can be totally religious by priortizing other life over our own but of course not themselves (which harkens back to Animal Farm). Some are always more equal than others.

YouTube - Crazy environmentalists mourn dead trees (now with annotations)
__________________
purpleoscar is offline  
Old 12-09-2009, 03:09 PM   #268
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 11:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
Hello! Maurice Strong is a Communist and I posted his recent criticism of the ballot box. What do you think a world government is that we can't vote for?

BTW attacking Monckton personally for gathering science that others did and presenting it is not going to stop other climatologists from responding to AGW attacks. Monckton got the Nobel Prize pin because of Al Gore (who represents the IPCC) and Monckton contibuted to the 2007 IPCC report. He was being sarcastic.

Welcome to the Copenhagen Climate Challenge Web Site

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...d-6e2d71db52d9

All their arguments about how deniers are like tobacco companies can easily be thrown towards the AGW lobby. Anybody thinks that there is no wrong doing in the emails didn't read them. Deleting back up data so no one could check them or threatening to delete something to prevent Steve McIntyre from checking it is an enormous problem and denying (A-ha) the problem is not going to satisfy the critics and will create more critics as we are seeing right now.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline  
Old 12-09-2009, 03:26 PM   #269
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 01:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
The problem is that there is no policy that can reduce C02 increases at the forseeable future so we are faced with a cliff where rich people are telling the rest of the population to jump first. Cap and trade has not and will not decrease C02 unless we go heavily into nuclear or find some other cheaper alternative (which doesn't exist yet). Having a carbon diet (especially in a recession) has its moral implications as well. Or we can shut down coal plants and eliminate the middle class. Humans are part of the environment.
I agree to an extent: there has to be a methodical approach that moves no faster than we can afford to. However, denying global warming does us no good. I don't give two shits about some stolen e-mail propaganda: global warming is proven by science, and has been over and over again. The longer we delay actual progress with these redundant, baseless arguments, the longer it takes for us to make changes to our policies that can be beneficial both to the environment and to the economy.
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 12-09-2009, 04:39 PM   #270
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 12:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Environmentalists can be totally religious by priortizing other life over our own but of course not themselves (which harkens back to Animal Farm). Some are always more equal than others.
Have you read your posts lately?

You come as the most "religious" in this thread. You believe any piece of junk science that comes your way as long as it supports your side.
__________________

__________________
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 01:30 PM.


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