• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Moderated Global Warming Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
jj said:
Except beyond a few nutters, who is saying that?

The thing that is "jamming the signals" is very simple, a concerted, relentless disinformation campaign to "teach the controversy", when there is no scientific controversy.

It's just like the anti-scientific truth-haters who push creationism by "teaching the controversy".
Click to expand...

Yep.... at the risk of a double post I will present this link again....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDNXu...ature=youtu.be

It goes into detail about that very topic so I think it is worth posting again.
 
CplFerro said:
Dear mike3,

Something about the "we must shut down industrial society in order to save the polar bears" meme, is what I think is jamming the signals.

Cpl Ferro
Click to expand...

Of course, the only ones sowing such a meme are those who seek to politicize the issue, distort the facts, delay any policy action and confuse those who haven't actually delved into the science of the issue. Apply true skepticism and critical analysis and the basics are much more easily discerned.
 
CplFerro said:
Dear mike3,

Something about the "we must shut down industrial society in order to save the polar bears" meme, is what I think is jamming the signals.

Cpl Ferro
Click to expand...

Have you noticed how opponents of any action to mitigate AGW go on about polar bears so much? They really aren't a big issue. The Amazon basin is a big issue.

I also wonder how solar panels and wind turbines are disconnected from an industrial society. It does, after all, require an industrial society to produce and maintain them, and they in turn can power an industrial society. It won't be this current industrial society, but then this isn't the industrial society of the 19thCE. Change is a constant, something to wary of but not something to be feared.
 
Trakar said:
Of course, the only ones sowing such a meme are those who seek to politicize the issue, distort the facts, delay any policy action and confuse those who haven't actually delved into the science of the issue.
Click to expand...

This goes some way to explaining the disconnect. Loud voices bring up polar bears as if they're the issue, and so it becomes the issue to the proles who listen to them. The proles don't think polar bears matter because, frankly, they don't. A sad loss but there it is, and they'll survive in zoos anyway.

And the other option of the excluded middle, the only possible alternative according to the loud voices, is a pre-industrial society. Black-and-white TV and swing bands. A living nightmare.

Apply true skepticism and critical analysis and the basics are much more easily discerned.
Click to expand...

It seems to be working for Mitt Romney, which could be interesting. As the old saying goes, "Only Nixon could go to China". When pandas weren't really the issue either.
 
Miss_Kitt said:
I think part of the 'disconnect' is that a lot of people--I'd put myself loosely in this category--think there is global warming at some level, but we also know that "experts" on both sides are lying through their teeth to push whatever political solution they're fond of. It's a bit frustrating to really feel that one has no idea what represents anything like an unbiased source of information.
Click to expand...

You've been told that climate scientists, and scientists in general - the real experts - have been lying through their teeth and you believe it. Have you ever asked yourself why you believe that? I'd love to hear what answer you came to.

The science is unequivocal, and the effects are here now, as predicted. Not as predicted by Lindzen or Spencer, but by the scientists who have applied themselves to the scientific problem. They represent an unbiased source of information.

Clearly, there is warming, and clearly, human activity is causing (at least most) of it. But the proposed solutions seem to be floating abstractions. A "solution" that trims the global economy by 6% to achieve a 1/10th of 1% improvement in amount of warming over the next 40 years seems ridiculous: where will the funding for research and mitigation come from? A "solution" that assumes that the largest polluters don't need to comply (China, USA) is pointless. A "solution" that arbitrarily decides that people who see a chance to escape the poverty that has dogged their families for generations (India, Brazil, Indonesia) must be denied that chance to offset the sins of those who have wealth, is grossly unfair. And so on.
Click to expand...

Kyoto is gone. Forget Kyoto. Leave it, move on. It's gone the way of the polar bear.

I am not sure what the best solutions to global warming are ...
Click to expand...

We can surely agree that having half the political parties in the US denying its very existence is one of the worst.

... but raising awareness--which is happening--and taxing carbon (which is not, sadly) are clearly big players.
Click to expand...

Cap-and-trade is established in Europe, China's bringing in a scheme some time soon, Australia is bringing a tax scheme online if the government survives. None of it will make much difference in the medium-term, of course, but there's a grand experiment in political and economic science going on out there along with the physical one.

While we're at it, how about the disconnect that lets people fish species to the brink of extinction, even though that means their own livelihood is destroyed? And that's a problem with an impact measured in years, not decades...

Just my thoughts, MK
Click to expand...

I'm also of the opinion that the first serious blow to the 7 billion will come from the oceans, not the changing climate. AGW is actually a distraction from that problem, but an understandable one - we live in the climate, and the oceans are almost entirely out of sight.
 
CapelDodger said:
This goes some way to explaining the disconnect. Loud voices bring up polar bears as if they're the issue, and so it becomes the issue to the proles who listen to them. The proles don't think polar bears matter because, frankly, they don't. A sad loss but there it is, and they'll survive in zoos anyway.
Click to expand...

The loss of any species, diminishes all.

That said,
even in times of increasing diversity and great biological fecundity,
there are losers in the game of life.

Polar bears are more important for their "canary in a mineshaft" role
than as any quintessential linchpin in the survival of society
or humanity.

And the other option of the excluded middle, the only possible alternative according to the loud voices, is a pre-industrial society. Black-and-white TV and swing bands. A living nightmare.
Click to expand...

Hey, a couple of coconut shells and African Swallows for everyone!

Though, many of these voices do rather remind me of the black knight
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4


It seems to be working for Mitt Romney, which could be interesting. As the old saying goes, "Only Nixon could go to China". When pandas weren't really the issue either.
Click to expand...

Which "mitt romney" do you refer to?

Do you have any links to any specific Mitt Romney statements concerning climate change that you find to be accurately reflective of the mainstream scientific understanding? All I can find are out-of-context snippets that kinda sound like they are getting the general gist of the issue,...until you listen to them in context.
 
If you are saying the published peer reviewed science is a lie then how do you convince yourself of the truth on any issue?

Assuming that what you really mean are the people who debate this in the public and political spheres, it’s really not hard at all to find out who the real experts are. Of course not everyone involved in any public and political debate is personally an expert (in fact that’s rare), but for these people it’s equally easy to follow their citations and see if the published science supports their positions.

If they don’t provide citations to published science, then yes be sceptical but. The fact is, however that it’s really easy to determine that the people on the AGW side are supported by the literature and are often important contributors to the literature. It’s also equally easy to determine that the “experts” s and voices on the other side are not supported by the literature.

I’ve posted this before, but here are some Google scholar searches showing published papers from some of the main contributors to “Realclimate”, a blog often at the center of online climate debates. Note the large number of papers in some of the most prestigious journals.
http://www.realclimate.org/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/contributors/


http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?as...as_sdt=1.&as_sdtp=on&as_sdtf=&as_sdts=5&hl=en

http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl...Mann"&btnG=Search&as_sdt=0,5&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl...mann"&btnG=Search&as_sdt=0,5&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl...stad"&btnG=Search&as_sdt=0,5&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl...torf"&btnG=Search&as_sdt=0,5&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl...dley"&btnG=Search&as_sdt=0,5&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl...teig"&btnG=Search&as_sdt=0,5&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl...cher"&btnG=Search&as_sdt=0,5&as_ylo=&as_vis=0
http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl...bert"&btnG=Search&as_sdt=0,5&as_ylo=&as_vis=0
http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl...idel"&btnG=Search&as_sdt=0,5&as_ylo=&as_vis=0
 
Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate

"Man-made global warming/climate change" is a deliberate hoax. It is ideological political agenda cloaked as objective science. It is a lie. It is indoctrination. It is an attempted generational brain-washing that has been largely successful. Stop regurgitating what "the experts" feed you. Think for yourself. Question authority, remember?



http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/

"Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data."

"...Emails between Climategate scientists, however, show a concerted effort to hide rather than disseminate underlying evidence and procedures."

"“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process,”writes Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a newly released email.

“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,” Jones writes in another newly released email. “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”"

"...The new emails also reveal the scientists’ attempts to politicize the debate and advance predetermined outcomes.

“The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out” of IPCC reports, writes Jonathan Overpeck, coordinating lead author for the IPCC’s most recent climate assessment."

"I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose” skeptical scientist Steve McIntyre, Mann writes in another newly released email."

"...Tom Wigley, a scientist at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, authored a Climategate 1.0 email asserting that his fellow Climategate scientists “must get rid of” the editor for a peer-reviewed science journal because he published some papers contradicting assertions of a global warming crisis."
 
No, I'd rather support the ancient traditions that hold global warming to be a fact rather than the radical new way of thinking that states we shouldn't believe everything we read.
 
JudeBrando said:
"Man-made global warming/climate change" is a deliberate hoax. It is ideological political agenda cloaked as objective science. It is a lie. It is indoctrination. It is an attempted generational brain-washing that has been largely successful. Stop regurgitating what "the experts" feed you. Think for yourself. Question authority, remember?



http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/.
Click to expand...

Any supporting links or evidences beyond Mr Taylors opinions and fantasies? preferrably something containing legal and verifiable data and information?

edit addendum: This release is from the same hacked batch of emails taken more than two years ago, there is no new information or concerns. Simply a new release of data that wasn't considered sensational enough to release in the first batch two years ago. A pathetic attempt by a deranged denialist criminal to to breath life into a non-existent controversy by any means necessary. Pathetic and sad.
 
Last edited:
JudeBrando said:
"Man-made global warming/climate change" is a deliberate hoax. It is ideological political agenda cloaked as objective science. It is a lie. It is indoctrination. It is an attempted generational brain-washing that has been largely successful. Stop regurgitating what "the experts" feed you. Think for yourself. Question authority, remember?
Click to expand...

Ok. What's the purpose of the hoax ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom