Now I'm confused - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-07-2006, 04:33 PM   #16
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 06:28 PM
One Russian scientist claims that the earth is going to get colder soon, and it means that global warming is therefore false? I'd wait until at least one other "authority" agrees that it will get colder.
__________________

__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 02-07-2006, 04:39 PM   #17
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 10:28 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
the consensus, as expressed in 2001 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the National Academy of Sciences, and recently confirmed by a joint statement of the G8 academies of science, is that nearly all the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities; most "evidence" to the contrary is usually politically influenced and designed to give certain people "ammunition" to help them ignore this overwhelming evidence so they continue to consume fossil fuels at current levels.
And the global warming mantra help envirnomentalist organizations in their fundraising. The political influence to maintain the "general consensus" is tremendous, especially when we can blame "evil corporations" or "consumers of fossil fuels" if we don't step in line.

Do you really think proposed reductions of emmissions as a percentage of the volume of the atmosphere will make an impact? Or will natural cycles cause the changes we "fear"?
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 02-07-2006, 05:04 PM   #18
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
DrTeeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Q continuum
Posts: 4,770
Local Time: 07:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
The political influence to maintain the "general consensus" is tremendous
What exactly fo you base this assumption on?
__________________
DrTeeth is offline  
Old 02-07-2006, 06:15 PM   #19
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 10:28 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by DrTeeth


What exactly fo you base this assumption on?
Start Here

If you are open to this idea, I am sure you will find more.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 02-07-2006, 06:22 PM   #20
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 01:28 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Start Here

If you are open to this idea, I am sure you will find more.

OMG!!!

you mean one scientist disagrees with everyone else? let's listen to him first, and only, and then use him to discredit everyone else.

you would never be so casual to dismiss international consensus on the basis of one dissenter on any other topic, why are you so willing to do so on this subject?

this sounds like the same tactic used to dissmiss the "mainstream media" -- it's liberal! every word is meant to further an agenda! don't listen to any of it! it's in some groups best interests to keep up interest in climate change! it's all about lining the pockets of those greedy scientists and facult members! don't listen to any of them!

if you're ever in DC, i'd like you to meet my friend who works for the EPA. she'll tell you stories about the extent to which the Bush administration goes to stifle the EPA on this subject, precisely because the actual science about what fossil fuels are doing to the earth -- in conjunction with other factors, everyone agrees that climate change is in some part natural, and in many parts man made -- would spell disaster for the oil companies.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-07-2006, 06:35 PM   #21
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 10:28 AM
OMG!!!!!!

I said start here.

But I guess your ONE friend who will give a non-partisian view
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 02-07-2006, 06:44 PM   #22
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
DrTeeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Q continuum
Posts: 4,770
Local Time: 07:28 PM

Well now NBC, you said the political pressure was tremendous, so you wouldn't mind giving me a few more links now would you? This one particular example is highly unconvincing. That's probably why the thread didn't really get much response.

One thing I at least would say is that the issue is very politically charged, but most of the political pressure I see seems to be aimed against Global Warming science, not supporting it.
__________________
DrTeeth is offline  
Old 02-07-2006, 06:45 PM   #23
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 01:28 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
OMG!!!!!!

I said start here.

But I guess your ONE friend who will give a non-partisian view


notice that my ONE friend isn't on TV. she has no agenda to push, it was revealed over a few beers.

but because she's friends with me, she must be a raging liberal who's just a Bush-hater, so let's dismiss her outright before she can open her mouth.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-07-2006, 06:47 PM   #24
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 01:28 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by DrTeeth
One thing I at least would say is that the issue is very politically charged, but most of the political pressure I see seems to be aimed against Global Warming science, not supporting it.


bingo.

there's much more money to be made going against the consensus than agreeing with it.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-07-2006, 06:50 PM   #25
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 10:28 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by DrTeeth
One thing I at least would say is that the issue is very politically charged, but most of the political pressure I see seems to be aimed against Global Warming science, not supporting it.
Between the UN and all the countries who signed up to the Kyoto Treaty, you think most of the political pressure is against global warming science??
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 02-07-2006, 06:54 PM   #26
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 01:28 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Between the UN and all the countries who signed up to the Kyoto Treaty, you think most of the political pressure is against global warming science??


between the oil companies and the car companies and the US government, who do you think is going to spend the most amount of money to do whatever they can to grasp at any straws to discredit the general consensus that much of climate change is due to man-made activity?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-07-2006, 06:58 PM   #27
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 04:28 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511


and whenever possible, confuse the issue and distract with shiny objects that distract from mountains of evidence.
Sorry but have you read the forcast for Europe with climate change? Predictions of glaciers covering Wales, extremely cold winters. The idea of global warming has been discredited because global climate is more complex than a 1:1 - CO2: Heating effect. That is why the terminology climate change has been introduced.

Far from distracting from the mountains of evidence pieces like this can add to the evidence, understanding what is going on is what is done with the evidence and ideally it should not ignore key pieces of evidence.

We are in an inter-glacial period right now and there is a good deal of concern that we could be heading back into an ice age. Global warming may in fact be keeping us out of it. Importantly Kyoto does not adress the problem, it costs money and in future tighter central planning schemes will be pushed to curb emissions when applications of technology can yield better results (again geosequestration and climate engineering). Claiming consensus left, right and centre without actually putting up your evidence is not science, it is politics.

Is it even worth pointing out to you that the issue here is solar output and it's effect on climate? Just as Milankovitch cycles have periodic effects on how much solar energy reaches the earth and tempreture is altered correspondingly.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 02-07-2006, 07:03 PM   #28
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 04:28 AM
Ooooh another scary man with an agenda - how dare he look at more than 200 years of time
Quote:
`They call me a global warming heretic," says David Bellamy, the conservationist who has dismissed the imminent demise of the planet under a tidal wave of melted polar ice caps as "poppycock". "I have assured them that they cannot burn me at the stake because of all the dioxins my body will give off." The bearded botanist emits a hoot at this scientific bon mot, but in truth he isn't finding his current predicament very funny at all.

Ever since he stuck his head above the undergrowth to question the view that man-made carbon dioxide emissions are responsible for climate change, Bellamy has found himself frozen out of the debate on global warming. Rather than blaming pollutants, he argues that the current change in climate is simply part of an eons-old global cycle; one that humans are as powerless to stop as they are blameless in starting. "Natural climate change has been happening for a long time," he says. "If you were sitting in London 10,000 years ago there would be woolly rhinos walking around because it would be the end of the ice age. Now we are in a pretty wobbly phase and some people are saying that this is caused by carbon dioxide pouring into the atmosphere and drowning us all. I just don't believe that."

The problem is that the thought police of the conservation community will brook no dissent and have contrived to silence his voice and that of his supporters. "I always thought that was what science was all about: arguing publicly and publishing both sides of the point, finding the answer," he says. "But we simply cannot get our stuff published. They don't tolerate dissent because they are not telling the truth. There is no consensus whatsoever on global warming; there are just as many people dissenting but they will not publish those papers in journals."

He believes the reason that non-believers are being silenced is fear: after all it is reassuring to think that whatever the cataclysm ahead we at least have the power to head it off. Much less comforting to believe that there is nothing we can do.

Bellamy, who endeared himself to a generation with his mangled pronunciations and saliva-soaked enthusiasm on television, might make an unlikely rebel, but that is what, reluctantly, he has become. He is no apologist for the car industry, he says, though his views are likely to be more acceptable around the water coolers of General Motors than Greenpeace. "If you believe that CO2 actually is causing man-made global warming then the car is bad news," he says. "But I think the car industry should be patted on the back. They are all doing their bit making more and more efficient cars, and increased fuel efficiency is a good thing because it will make the oil last longer."
source
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 02-07-2006, 07:12 PM   #29
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
DrTeeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Q continuum
Posts: 4,770
Local Time: 07:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Is it even worth pointing out to you that the issue here is solar output and it's effect on climate? Just as Milankovitch cycles have periodic effects on how much solar energy reaches the earth and tempreture is altered correspondingly.
As I said before, the importance of solar activity and Milankovitch cycles in climate modelling are widely recognized throughout the scientific community. It's very important to review every piece of information in this. However, it's impossible to review this particular scientist's claim as the 'article' lacks sufficient information. I'm highly suspicious of claims like this when it's not backed up.
__________________
DrTeeth is offline  
Old 02-07-2006, 07:13 PM   #30
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 10:28 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Ignoring some evidence to focus on select evidence doesn't lend credibility to the argument.

did you work with the tobacco lobby in the 70s and 80s?
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
 

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



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:28 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