Volkswagen Passat Forum banner

1 - 20 of 445 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,987 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
On the one hand we have the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change coming up with yet another of its notoriously politicised reports, hyping up the scare by claiming that world surface temperatures have been higher in 11 of the past 12 years (1995-2006) than ever previously recorded.

This carefully ignores the latest US satellite figures showing temperatures having fallen since 1998, declining in 2007 to a 1983 level - not to mention the newly revised figures for US surface temperatures showing that the 1930s had four of the 10 warmest years of the past century, with the hottest year of all being not 1998, as was previously claimed, but 1934.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/25/nbook125.xml


Uh, oh, sounds like we made a boo-boo. In addition, 2007 is set to be cooler than 2006. I guess all the talk about man-made global warming has caused some positive changes. So far the IPCC has not corrected their numbers to reflect the revision cited above. I think that over the next couple of years, this debate is going to get real entertaining. If I was the MMGW folks, I would claim victory now!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,574 Posts
Did they have one with the Dust Bowl?
 

·
Never forgets
Joined
·
2,380 Posts
Uh, oh, sounds like we made a boo-boo. In addition, 2007 is set to be cooler than 2006. I guess all the talk about man-made global warming has caused some positive changes.
Because everyone knows a single (of a few) datapoint(s) is the best way to do science. :lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,987 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Because everyone knows a single (of a few) datapoint(s) is the best way to do science. :lol:
I hope you could sense the dripping sarcasm I was using. BTW....I wouldn't call 150 years of data a few, but personally, most of what we are calling climate science is a huge joke.
 

·
My pornstar name came up "Jay the Snork."
Joined
·
5,611 Posts
What is a joke is that people with absolutely no expertise in climate science, or so-called experts with financial backing of oil companies, see fit to cherry pick data and claim to have proof that the overwhelming consensus opinion of the largest group of experts ever assembled is not only completely and wildly wrong, but that this diverse international group of scientists are for some unexplainable reason perpetuating a hoax. Without knowing anything about climate science, one need only apply Occam's Razor in a meta-analysis of the issue to reach the obvious conclusion: The deniers are ignorant/misinformed, or have one of several vested interests in lying about the issue.

A case in point: do a little research about the author of the OP's opening quote. Apparently journalists/magazine editors are the "go to guys" when it comes time to refute the work of scientists. Gee, I wonder if I should ask Brit Hume about his theory of the origins of the universe, instead of those liberal con artists Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawkings? (dripping sarcasm anyone?) Its sad how frequently the right wing offers know-nothing political hacks and ideologues as "experts" as a counterpoint to actual experts and expect their line of BS to be granted equal weight in an argument. Even sadder, is non-thinkers who buy into this crap and try to spread it further.

How's this for an analogy: We'll stage a debate on economics with the current Fed, along with greenspan vs some kid actors from disney. Every time Greenspan and company offer an accepted economic theory as support for an argument, Hannah Montana can call them all frauds and explain that one time at band camp they tried that out with pooled money from the kids in their tent and it so totally didn't turn out that way at all, thereby proving all economic theory from the past 100 years is wrong and a hoax perpetuated by wackos who want us all to starve to death..THen, any time Fed policy comes up in discussion on their radio shows, Al Franken, Janeane Garofalo, and Rachel Maddow can quote Hannah Montana to prove all those loony tune fed boys are wrong again, and have no idea what they are talking about. After all, who would you look to for monetary policy advice, a bunch of highly educated lifelong economists, or Hannah Montana?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23,182 Posts
What is a joke is that people with absolutely no expertise in climate science, or so-called experts with financial backing of oil companies, see fit to cherry pick data and claim to have proof that the overwhelming consensus opinion of the largest group of experts ever assembled is not only completely and wildly wrong, but that this diverse international group of scientists are for some unexplainable reason perpetuating a hoax. Without knowing anything about climate science, one need only apply Occam's Razor in a meta-analysis of the issue to reach the obvious conclusion: The deniers are ignorant/misinformed, or have one of several vested interests in lying about the issue.
Or you could say the same about those preaching global warming. Who stands to gain from all the changes that will need to be made or the new technologies that HAVE to be found? It sure as hell ain't me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,720 Posts
Or you could say the same about those preaching global warming. Who stands to gain from all the changes that will need to be made or the new technologies that HAVE to be found? It sure as hell ain't me.
I see what you said, but what i heard is that global warming will not be an issue until it is profitable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,987 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
What is a joke is that people with absolutely no expertise in climate science, or so-called experts with financial backing of oil companies, see fit to cherry pick data and claim to have proof that the overwhelming consensus opinion of the largest group of experts ever assembled is not only completely and wildly wrong, but that this diverse international group of scientists are for some unexplainable reason perpetuating a hoax. Without knowing anything about climate science, one need only apply Occam's Razor in a meta-analysis of the issue to reach the obvious conclusion: The deniers are ignorant/misinformed, or have one of several vested interests in lying about the issue.

A case in point: do a little research about the author of the OP's opening quote. Apparently journalists/magazine editors are the "go to guys" when it comes time to refute the work of scientists. Gee, I wonder if I should ask Brit Hume about his theory of the origins of the universe, instead of those liberal con artists Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawkings? (dripping sarcasm anyone?) Its sad how frequently the right wing offers know-nothing political hacks and ideologues as "experts" as a counterpoint to actual experts and expect their line of BS to be granted equal weight in an argument. Even sadder, is non-thinkers who buy into this crap and try to spread it further.

How's this for an analogy: We'll stage a debate on economics with the current Fed, along with greenspan vs some kid actors from disney. Every time Greenspan and company offer an accepted economic theory as support for an argument, Hannah Montana can call them all frauds and explain that one time at band camp they tried that out with pooled money from the kids in their tent and it so totally didn't turn out that way at all, thereby proving all economic theory from the past 100 years is wrong and a hoax perpetuated by wackos who want us all to starve to death..THen, any time Fed policy comes up in discussion on their radio shows, Al Franken, Janeane Garofalo, and Rachel Maddow can quote Hannah Montana to prove all those loony tune fed boys are wrong again, and have no idea what they are talking about. After all, who would you look to for monetary policy advice, a bunch of highly educated lifelong economists, or Hannah Montana?
Couple of questions (rhetorical):

1. Do those who support man-made global warming have a "vested" interest? Hint...something called grants and research funds from those whose seek to use that research to try and gain control over that which they do not control.

2. So, the corrected data from NASA means nothing? Nope, guess not. What is that argument tactic called when you attack the messenger, but ignore the message?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,163 Posts
It shouldn't matter whether global warming is real or not, pollution is not good.

If you disagree with that statement, then a real debate can occur.
 

·
Reverend Arthur Dimmwit
Joined
·
3,988 Posts
Or you could say the same about those preaching global warming. Who stands to gain from all the changes that will need to be made or the new technologies that HAVE to be found? It sure as hell ain't me.
You're looking at this backwards. The deniers' motivation is about who stands to LOSE enormous sums of money if fossil fuel emissions are restricted. The preachers' motivation, in my opinion, is not about money. It's that they give a shit about their kids.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,817 Posts
I see what you said, but what i heard is that global warming will not be an issue until it is profitable.
Actually, this is why AlGore conveniently "invented" his own reasons/explanations for the causes of global warming...then wrote a book about it.

:lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,829 Posts
I guess you didn't have a drought in your area this year?
Nope, but lord knows if we did that it would have been because of man-made global warming.;)
As you (should) know, global warming isn't only about temps rising, it's about climate shifts. I guess you won't be concerned when we start growing wheat in Florida and importing corn. :lol:

Our corporate farm/centralized food supply chain/non-genetically diverse crop system is wide open to disruption due to even a few years of bad weather, let alone actual climate shifts. Global warming may or may not be a reality, but it should very well point out to people the problems PT mentioned, and other issues like central farming. We've been lucky since the dust bowl, but food developed in a laboratory isn't going to help if our crops are hit by a plague (potato famine) or another dust bowl rolls around. Think we have issues with oil supply? Trade deficits? We feed much of the world, what happens when we need all our food for ourselves?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,279 Posts
Although there is current evidence that a potential global warming pattern is occurring (receding of the ice shelves in Antarctica, the Arctic and Greenland for instance), this is not definitive proof of a global warming trend. Scientists and environmentalists who posit that this warming pattern is an inevitable predictor of things to come are therefore predisposed to set their models up to "confirm" such a hypothesis. Even if many believe that this is completely bogus (as John Coleman rails), when can we be certain of knowing the truth? If we wait to see if ocean-front property becomes available in DC, it is too late...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23,182 Posts
You're looking at this backwards. The deniers' motivation is about who stands to LOSE enormous sums of money if fossil fuel emissions are restricted. The preachers' motivation, in my opinion, is not about money. It's that they give a shit about their kids.
Then they're fighting the wrong battle. They should be fighting POLLUTION, not global warming.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
130 Posts
^ cause and effect.

The polution very well could be causing the warming(climate shifts).
The polar ice cap is still melting, as is the Greenland glacier.

Not to mention the Siberian Galciers.

It's stilll a theory, but not like ID, it's a scientific theory that came from a hypothesis with factual evidence that is guiding the scientists towards the conclusion that it is man-made.

You really can't deny all of the forests and trees that have been cut down and replaced with asphalt are adding to the warming, the CO2 emissions cannot be good for anything. Some times in the past these emissions occurred naturally with devastating consequences. If the cause is man-made, then man can undo SOME of the damage.
 
1 - 20 of 445 Posts
Top