|
The global cooling debate has begun anew... (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
That's funny because there's lot of scientific facts that point to us going through Earth's normal cycling of warming and cooling...
Strange huh? |
What is strange is your failure to come up with one peer-reviewed document that states such a case as more likely than industrial emissions. Oh, but the scientists are on a mission to prop up Al Gore right? That's why they go to Greenland, moutain glaciers, ocean reefs, and take measurements to be later analyzed in the LABORATORY.
You've been listening to AM talk radio haven't you ? ? ? :o |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
What is strange is your failure to come up with one peer-reviewed document that states such a case as more likely than industrial emissions. Oh, but the scientists are on a mission to prop up Al Gore right? That's why they go to Greenland, moutain glaciers, ocean reefs, and take measurements to be later analyzed in the LABORATORY.
You've been listening to AM talk radio haven't you ? ? ? :o |
Even if global warming is just a huge conspiracy we have nothing to lose. All of the consequences of reducing emissions are positive: clean air, energy independence, etc.... Don't believe that BS that it will hurt the economy. Significant reductions should actually improve the economy long term because there would be a huge rush of innovation and infrastructure investment. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
Even if global warming is just a huge conspiracy we have nothing to lose. All of the consequences of reducing emissions are positive: clean air, energy independence, etc.... Don't believe that BS that it will hurt the economy. Significant reductions should actually improve the economy long term because there would be a huge rush of innovation and infrastructure investment. |
Tell that to the oil companies. We're talking billions of dollars here. They also have an arsenal of lobbyists making sure Washington is on the "right" path. A lot of these so-called studies refuting global warming are in fact funded and chartered by the oil industry itself. |
|
|
| donnybrasco |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Tell that to the oil companies. We're talking billions of dollars here. They also have an arsenal of lobbyists making sure Washington is on the "right" path. A lot of these so-called studies refuting global warming are in fact funded and chartered by the oil industry itself. |
It's a brilliant piece of deception on their part then, no?
Once these oil exec's and devious corporate officers have gathered up all of their profits from selling us all of those greenhouse emitting fuels, they'll take off to go live on Mars...far, far away from global warming here on earth.
Thus, they and their families will never be affected by global warming, so they don't need to concern themselves with it affecting them here on earth.
It's a brilliant plan. It's so obvious though. Anyone who can't see it must be blind.
:crazy: |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
However, if ever there was any question that he is little more than an opportunistic political hack, my suspicions were again confirmed a few weeks ago when he tried to use the term "subprime carbon assets" to further his own agenda. |
Is that for real?
WTF are, "subprime carbon assets" other than a newly created Gore-Green economic term meaning to, "cash in"?
You know, Enron created their own hypothetical economic forecasting too and with any luck, misery will soon have company...
Not that I'm not all for trying to curb our pollution and all that, but Gore just irks me... |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | A Black Hole of Denial?
February 29, 2008 · 1 Comment
Heartland was a centerpiece of tobacco industry efforts to deny linkages between smoking and cancer. many of the same “scientists’ and Heartland have been involved in seeking to confuse the public’s understand of Global Warming. In face of the reality that skeptics and denialists can’t stand up to scientific scrutiny and are unable to get published in peer-reviewed literature (since the work can’t stand up to review), Heartland intends to create a ”peer reviewed” journal that will give a stamp of approval for these people who are so intent on rejecting reality. In short, Heartland is trying to coalesce enough bodies, enough energy, to create a dense pack to have a black hole to bend and distort the light when it comes to Global Warming issues and the public understanding/discussion of them.
....
There are those who believe in the IPCC and peer-reviewed science, and those who don’t. Those who don’t aren’t real scientists — they can’t be convinced by any evidence. Their conclusions aren’t tentative and testable.
....
If you doubt RealClimate’s analysis, you can look to Heartland’s program and participant list for confirmation. It’s a who’s who of apologists for tobacco, coal and oil; a long list of people like Christopher Monckton, who don’t mind when they lie, or like Bob Carter, who don’t make any sense when they are telling their truth.
Also there, of course, is Marc Morano, who is the communications director for the MINORITY side of the US Senate Committee on Public Works and a key player supporting Senator James Inhofe (R-EXXON). Morano was key to the writing and timing of release for Inhofe’s Peerless Work just before Christmas, with a truthiness embodied misleading (and dishonest) “report” of “over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims”. While without an ability to stand up to serious scrutiny, the deft handling of this report got it a lot of attention and fostered confusion. What do we think Morano and Heartland expect from/hope for the coming few days of their “conference”, their coven?
|
http://energysmart.wordpress.com/20...enial/#more-500 |
|
|
| Arbiter |
Permit me to interject with a small dose of reality: all that carbon dioxide is going to make its way into the atmosphere whether we are the ones who put it there or not (or to be accurate, the carbon is going to make its way back into the atmosphere -- y'all do realize that's where it came from in the first place, right?)
CO2 emissions from China and India have just about doubled in the past couple of decades, and if you think that trend is going to reverse itself you are in for a mighty big disappointment.
If those worried about global warming were prudent (and it is telling that they are not) then they would be almost exclusively concerned with mitigation strategies at this point. It is as if there is some great collective tragic flaw at work here. Truly it is a magnificient performance; by all means, continue! |
|
|
| Spacey Orange |
| you calling it don't make it so. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
CO2 emissions from China and India have just about doubled in the past couple of decades, and if you think that trend is going to reverse itself you are in for a mighty big disappointment. |
Isn't this the very reason the Kyoto Protocol failed / is failing... |
|
|
| Krypton |
The status quo is profiting from pollution. Carbon credits are a way to make pollution an expense rather than just a by-product of profitability.
I think your confusing the science with politics. More so than you, the right wing pundits of the radio and tv, DELIBERATELY mix up science and politics for their party's own political gain. The less we trust our scientists, the longer we can continue releasing UN-NATURAL amounts of greenhouse emissions.
Listen, of course CO2 and other gases have been released and absorbed for millions of years in natural cycles, etc., etc. But add to that, the unnatural release of greenhouse gases. Since the 1800's, this growth in emissions has not been constant, but has been EXPONENTIAL. Additionally, the biosphere's ability to absorb this extra carbon is hampered by destruction of carbon absorbing habitats. We have logged over half of our mature tropical forests, greatly changing local climates, AND reducing the biosphere's ability to absorb the extra carbon we spew into the atmosphere.
You still think this just a natural cycle? No, my friend, humans are not natural, and our activities have proven to have a direct relationship with our environment. The quicker we take responsibility for this, and stop trying to deny it, the quicker we can implement a plan of action where we can sustain economic development, but in harmony with the biosphere. Of course the right wingers and Rush Limbaughs of the world will deny it all they want, but when haven't they said anything which was not in line with the official party doctrine? |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Is that for real?
WTF are, "subprime carbon assets" other than a newly created Gore-Green economic term meaning to, "cash in"?
You know, Enron created their own hypothetical economic forecasting too and with any luck, misery will soon have company...
Not that I'm not all for trying to curb our pollution and all that, but Gore just irks me... |
Can we get that peer-reviewed article stating the current global warming is a natural occurance please? I couldn't find it my own universities library...;)
IN fact, this is the first result I find...;)
| quote: | Challenging Global Warming as a Social Problem: An Analysis of the Conservative Movement's Counter-Claims.
Author: McCright, Aaron M. Search
Author: Dunlap, Riley E. Search
Description: By: McCright, Aaron M.; Dunlap, Riley E.. Social Problems, Nov2000, Vol. 47 Issue 4, p499-522, 24p, 3 charts
Abstract: The sociological literature on global environmental change emphasizes the processes by which the problem of global warming is socially constructed. However, the opposing efforts to construct the "non-problematicity" of global warming advanced by the conservative movement are largely ignored. Utilizing recent work on framing processes in the social movements literature and claims-making from the social problems literature this paper analyzes the counter-claims promoted by the conservative movement between 1990 and 1997 as it mobilized to challenge the legitimacy of global warming as a social problem.
A thematic content analysis of publications arculated on the web sites of prominent conservative think tanks reveals three major counter-claims. First, the movement criticized the evidentiary basis of global warming as weak, it not entirely wrong. Second, the movement argued that global warming will have substantial benefits if it occurs. Third, the movement warned that proposed action to ameliorate global warming would do more claim than good in short, the conservative movement asserted that, while the silence of global warming appears to be growing more and more uncertain, the harmful effects of global warming policy are becoming increasingly certain in order to better understand the controversy over global warming, future research should pay attention to the influence ot the conservative movement by identifying the crucial roles of conservative foundations, conservative think tanks, and sympathetic "skeptic" scientists in undermining the growing scientific concensus over the reality of global warming. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]; (AN 4106292)
|
|
|
|
| josh4 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Dios mio, man. Laughable. |
I don't disagree with all your reservations on Gore. I just like that he upsets you.
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Umm, I'd highly suggest otherwise. I just came across this study that was done back in 2005:
|
You never disappoint. |
|
|
|
|
