global warming some thoughts

Herodotus

{Space for Rent}
Nov 10, 2007
1,790
0
0
landscaper said:
If you have peer reviewed information that the scientists that were quoted are wrong please put it on the thread. If youare just going to rant rave and spew about people who have a differing view that is entirley supported by science please don't.

The whole point of this thread was that some people have a differing opinion of climate change or global warming or what ever next weeks name is.

Differing scientific opinion is BELIEVE IT OR NOT a good thing it stops issues from being hi jacked by special interest groups be that group big oil or environmental activists.

Immediatly announcing that anybody who disagrees with the global warming hypothysis is either in the pay of big oil or takeing money from other interest groups is insulting to both the scientist and to any of us who want to actually take a look at the science and the issues with out taking an immediate side. This part is called examining the issue.

The concept that a geographer is not qualified to have an opinion on this matter is more than insulting. As part of his education in his specialty he would have had to look climate and changes to climate as they pertain to the local geographic area. Changes to climate and to geography would likely be noticable over geological time stretches.
How about you provide some wide-ranging and peer-reviewed PROOF that these pseudo-scientists are credible? This is exactly what the anti-climate change forces do all the time - provide one voice as opposition to hundreds and then claim that they should have an equal voice. That is bogus science being used for political motivations at its worst...

Why on Earth why would credible scientists waste time refuting bogus science that has already been proven 100 times over? It is a waste of scientific resources - a typical shell-game move by those who are opposed to the concept of climate change and are so desperate to advance their agenda that they try and drag down those that have credibility in the area. Hmm, sounds EXACTLY like what you are accusing the scientific community of, except that you want to have that power from the minority. Interesting...

Since climate change is accepted by the majority of credible scientists across almost every relevant scientific field, the onus is on YOU, the naysayers, to prove that climate change does not exist and is not at all caused by human actions.

As far as shooting down a geographer's credibility, I am using your own earlier arguments against you - you claimed that non-climatologists and certain scientists cannot credibly comment on climate change. You even specifically named David Suzuki, who has more scientific chops than Timothy Bell ever will.

Once again, you have conveniently ignored my point that doing what is right for the environment is the right thing to do, whether you believe in climate change or not. This point alone makes me question your motivations.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
61,063
6,588
113
Herodotus said:
...That is bogus science being used for political motivations at its worst...
...
One problem is is that others are using seemingly valid science that they don't understand for their own politics (and personal gain).
 

landscaper

New member
Feb 28, 2007
5,752
0
0
Herodotus said:
How about you provide some wide-ranging and peer-reviewed PROOF that these pseudo-scientists are credible? This is exactly what the anti-climate change forces do all the time - provide one voice as opposition to hundreds and then claim that they should have an equal voice. That is bogus science being used for political motivations at its worst...

Why on Earth why would credible scientists waste time refuting bogus science that has already been proven 100 times over? It is a waste of scientific resources - a typical shell-game move by those who are opposed to the concept of climate change and are so desperate to advance their agenda that they try and drag down those that have credibility in the area. Hmm, sounds EXACTLY like what you are accusing the scientific community of, except that you want to have that power from the minority. Interesting...

Since climate change is accepted by the majority of credible scientists across almost every relevant scientific field, the onus is on YOU, the naysayers, to prove that climate change does not exist and is not at all caused by human actions.

As far as shooting down a geographer's credibility, I am using your own earlier arguments against you - you claimed that non-climatologists and certain scientists cannot credibly comment on climate change. You even specifically named David Suzuki, who has more scientific chops than Timothy Bell ever will.

Once again, you have conveniently ignored my point that doing what is right for the environment is the right thing to do, whether you believe in climate change or not. This point alone makes me question your motivations.
The point of view that is being ignored is that there can and should be discussion about matters that concern everyone. As far as comparing suzuki to bell I don't what i do examine the peer review material and make an informed decision.

The statement that climate change is accepted by a majority of the worlds scientists is questionable at best. There are a large number of reputable scientists that do not accept climate change as stated , they want to find out what is going on.

The real tragedy is that when ever somebody tries to start a conversation on the subject the special interests start screaming and try to shut down the process.

The question of who is right does not have a majority vote it is either right or wrong, that is the question to be decided by science,and immediatly screaming that the monied powers are trying to stop your agenda does no good anywhere.

Lastly if the science is right why so much screaming about somebody looking into the work? If it is good work it will stand scrutiny,/.......... oh yeh the scientific method
 

Herodotus

{Space for Rent}
Nov 10, 2007
1,790
0
0
Just as I suspected, more noise but no answers. You have yet to provide a shred of proof to back up what you state.
The statement that climate change is accepted by a majority of the worlds scientists is questionable at best. There are a large number of reputable scientists that do not accept climate change as stated , they want to find out what is going on.
Proof please. Show me a list of thousands of full-on climate change skeptics that are also even somewhat credible scientists without an agenda.
The point of view that is being ignored is that there can and should be discussion about matters that concern everyone.
What are we debating at this point? When the overwhelming scientific evidence supports that climate change is very real, is happening right now and will have continued and dramatic effects on the Earth, humanity, flora and fauna, then I think we owe it to these experts to take their word on it. Debate among the informed is fine. Delaying action based on the words of the vast minority is not.

Since you seem to like lists (at least when they support your purposes), here is a partial list of organizations that concur with much of the IPCC reports:

  • Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007
  • InterAcademy Council
  • Joint science academies’ statement 2007
  • Joint science academies’ statement 2005
  • Joint science academies’ statement 2001
  • International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
  • European Academy of Sciences and Arts
  • Network of African Science Academies
  • International Council for Science
  • European Science Foundation
  • American Association for the Advancement of Science
  • Federation of American Scientists
  • World Meteorological Organization
  • American Meteorological Society
  • Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
  • Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
  • Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
  • Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
  • American Geophysical Union
  • American Institute of Physics
  • American Astronomical Society
  • American Physical Society
  • American Chemical Society
  • National Research Council (US)
  • Federal Climate Change Science Program (US)
  • American Quaternary Association
  • Geological Society of America
  • Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
  • Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
  • Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences
  • European Geosciences Union
  • International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
  • International Union of Geological Sciences
These organizations represent literally thousands of scientists. This is only a small portion of the overall scientific community and doesn't take into account the thousands of other organzations and independent scientists that also support the theory of climate change and the need for action. The list of climate change deniers posted earlier comprises 40 "scientists" - and that is the loosest use of the word I can think of.

Speaking from experience, I personally know over 200 scientists who strongly believe in climate change and its long-term effects. I can count on less than one hand the number who are skeptics.

You do the math.
As far as comparing suzuki to bell I don't what i do examine the peer review material and make an informed decision.
But you did say that Suzuki was not credible while tacitly agreeing that Bell was. I would like to see YOUR proof for this outrageous statement.
The real tragedy is that when ever somebody tries to start a conversation on the subject the special interests start screaming and try to shut down the process.
No. The real tragedy is that there are people who believe what a very small but vocal minority say. I know this is because these deniers are given an almost equal voice even though they represent less than 10% of the scientific community.

The only people doing the screaming are those that do not want action on climate change. It has been proven that big oil is using the same tactics and even some of the same scientists and PR flaks that big tobacco used when they were trying to fight the overwhelming evidence that cigarettes are highly addictive and caused lung disease and cancer. It is an attempt to distract from the real problem and you have taken the bait - hook, line and sinker.

The question of who is right does not have a majority vote it is either right or wrong, that is the question to be decided by science,and immediatly screaming that the monied powers are trying to stop your agenda does no good anywhere.
Convenient (and somewhat hypocritical) argument from someone who claims that the climate change agenda is being pushed on us by politicians and that the naysaying minority is being shouted down or ostracized.
Lastly if the science is right why so much screaming about somebody looking into the work? If it is good work it will stand scrutiny,/.......... oh yeh the scientific method
No one cares what other scientists are doing - most scientists just do their work and let it speak for itself. But to give the occasional skeptic the same voice and weight as the overwhelming scientific majority is ridiculous.

With your last statement, you've now impugned the majority of the scientific community. So I must ask: what are your scientific credentials? Who are you to question the work of thousands of scientists?


I'm still awaiting your response to my question as to why doing something that benefits the health and well-being of the planet and its inhabitants is a bad thing. Climate change-causing (or at least somewhat responsible for CC) greenhouse gases come from the same sources as most airbourne and many land and water pollutants. Therefore doing something about climate change also makes the planet a cleaner, healthier ecosystem, with more diversity and biologically productive habitat and a far greater socially just place to live. So by opposing action on climate change, you are in effect saying that you don't care about these other aspects of environmentalism.
 
Last edited:

Herodotus

{Space for Rent}
Nov 10, 2007
1,790
0
0
Thought you'd like this...

Here's an excellent article by acclaimed writer and journalist George Monbiot on the business of denial and manufacturing doubt and dissent about climate change. Kinda pulls back the curtain on the denial industry and what powers it, why and how. From that, I found the following interesting and informative blog article from Exxonsecrets.org:


Exxon finally admits denialists cause problems

Exxon has admitted - for the first time - that the climate deniers it funds are causing problems for action on climate change.

This is a first for the company which has spent, since 1998, $23 million funding the climate denial industry.

And it's official - Exxon made this statement in this year's Corporate Citizenship Report, released in time for its shareholder meeting.

The statement reads:

"...in 2008 we will discontinue contributions to several public policy interest groups whose position on climate change could divert attention from the important discussion on how the world will secure the energy required for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner."
(page 41 under "public policy research contributions".)


"Could divert attention"? We award Exxon a special prize for the Understatement of the Year. The denial industry can be held responsible for the US's failure to act on climate. And Exxon has been at the heart of it for more than a decade.

So which groups is Exxon dropping? According to Reuters, gone from the funding list in 2008 are the George C Marshall Institute, the Committe for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), Frontiers of Freedom... and others.

These groups are what you might call the "engine room" of the climate denial industry.

But even Exxon's walking away from them now.

The company started dropping groups in 2006, with the Competitive Enterprise Institute being the first to go. Last year, it dumped the Heartland Institute, which organised the biggest denial conference for a long time, in New York in March and has been running a slightly ridiculous campaign against Al Gore.

The other groups were all co-sponsors of the Heartland conference which concluded, surprisingly enough, that global warming isn't happening.

We note that this announcement didn't come from the usual spokesman from Exxon, Ken Cohen, who chairs the company's funding committe, but from a new person. Clearly the new CEO Rex Tillerson is trying to shift his company from the poisoned chalice left to him by former CEO and arch denialist, Lee Raymond.

But is cutting nine groups getting the job done?

In short, no. From the 2007 Worldwide Giving Report, posted on Exxon's website on Friday, we can see that Exxon funded a total of 37 global warming denial groups, to the tune of nearly $2 million, which is pretty similar to 2006. Even cutting nine of them means the company is still funding 28 groups engaged in climate denial.

Tillerson needs to make a much wider sweep if he really wants to shake off Raymond's legacy - he has started, but we think he should apologise to the global community for the harm his company has caused.

1998 communications strategy groups finally seen off

The latest round of Exxon cuts means an end to the funding of the organisations who gathered together in 1998 to plot a communications strategy designed to foster public scepticism of climate science and undermine the Kyoto treaty.

The plan was drawn up by a small cabal of groups and companies, including Exxon, Chevron and the big energy provider, the Southern Company, and Fred Singer's outfit, SEPP. In there were also Frontiers of Freedom and the Marshall Institute, who have both enjoyed Exxon funding ever since.

The memo stated that "Victory will be achieved when:

... average citizens "understand" (recognise) uncertainties in climate science; recognition of uncertainties become part of conventional wisdom;

..."Those promoting the Kyoto Treaty on the basis of extant science appear out of touch with reality."
Well, sorry guys, while you may have achieved a certain level of climate scepticism, the IPCC's latest report is absolutely clear on the climate science - and governments are acting on it.

Will this stop the denial industry?

Well, no. We note that Walt Buchholtz, Exxon's former funding man, left the company and went to work at Heartland for a year. No doubt he helped set up Heartland's new sources of funding from other members of the business community.

There's still a ways to go, but it's a start. When companies like Exxon start questioning this lot, there's not a lot of people who will.
 

james t kirk

Well-known member
Aug 17, 2001
24,032
3,879
113
I do not believe in Global Warming.

Never have, doubt I ever will.

It's simply the latest "the sky is falling scenario" from Scientists who crave respect.

1. In the western world, Scientists get no respect. Sorry, it's true. The people who get respect are the people who make money. Doctors, Lawyers, Businessmen, Celebrities, etc. Scientists aren't even on the list. Scientists think that they are smarter than everyone and they crave respect. Finally, there is a doomsday scenario that the media has siezed on and the scientists are now in the spot light.

2. Eveyone is jumping on the bandwagon. All the scientists are now claiming to be climate change experts in their field. They all want to attend conferences all over the world. Paris, London, Brussells, Moscow, Wherever. Bet there won't be an escort to be had that week in town.

3. Global Warming is a theory. A mathematical theory. There is simply no proof that man made carbon dioxide emmissions are causing Global Warming.

4. Many of the same scientists now saying that we are all going to roast in our own juices used to be harping about the impending ice age. (Karl Sagan (RIP) case in point.

5. C02 is naturally occuring compound. The oceans in fact release more C02 than all of man kind put together every year. All plant life needs CO2 or it will die and so will we.

6. When Mount Pinatubo erupted in the early 90's it released more "greenhouse gases" into the atmosphere in one shot than all of mankind has since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

7. There is Global Warming occuring on Mars.

8. That last winter was beyond cold with almost a record snow fall. The winter before that was even colder (so says Enbridge when I get my gas bill.) I keep waiting for Global Warming, but it never happens. This spring has been and continues to be cold. (My furnace is still on.)

9. When asked about how come if we are experiencing "Global Warming" that the weather has been so much colder than in previous years, the same scientists say, "Oh, no, it's not Global Warming, it's "Climate Change" Getting colder is proof of Global Warming, I mean Climate Change.

Hmmmm, I don't think so.

All that said, I'm still for protecting the environment and controlling pollution - especially water pollution.
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
47,042
6,051
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
I believe there is something to Global warming based on NASA satellite photos over the last 30-40 years. Photos show solid evidence things are getting warmer by showing:
1. Polar icecaps shrinking.
2. Glaciers melting all over the planet.
3. In Russia alone over SEVERAL THOUSAND LAKES have dried up and vanished over that time span.

Something is definitely happening to cause this.
 
Toronto Escorts