NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2f4cc62e-5b0d-4b59-8705-fc28f14da388

There you have it: a report--not from FNC--that a highly respected scientist, not from the US and not employed by those evil US corporations, and one who was among the first to sound the alarm, now thinks global warming is overhyped.

Could it be that the vast right-wing conspiracy now controls Canadian media and French scientists? Or is it that the whole issue really is overhyped, and that Al Gore et al. are full of hot air (pun definitely intended)?

I'm voting the latter (surprise, surprise).

Calling the arguments of those who see catastrophe in climate change "simplistic and obscuring the true dangers," Dr. Allegre especially despairs at "the greenhouse-gas fanatics whose proclamations consist in denouncing man's role on the climate without doing anything about it except organizing conferences and preparing protocols that become dead letters." The world would be better off, Dr. Allegre believes, if these "denouncers" became less political and more practical, by proposing practical solutions to head off the dangers they see, such as developing technologies to sequester C02

Wow, this so totally supports your belief that global warming is a bunch of liberal malarky.

Got any other thoroughly unconvincing shit to post, New Mitanni? Perhaps you could tell me where I went wrong and betrayed my race by refusing to hate Muslims.

After all, it isn't nice to expose a fraud.

If this counts as an exposé for those of you searching for any reason to bury your heads further into the sand, it does sort of speak of your desperation...

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2f4cc62e-5b0d-4b59-8705-fc28f14da388

There you have it: a report--not from FNC--that a highly respected scientist, not from the US and not employed by those evil US corporations, and one who was among the first to sound the alarm, now thinks global warming is overhyped.

Could it be that the vast right-wing conspiracy now controls Canadian media and French scientists? Or is it that the whole issue really is overhyped, and that Al Gore et al. are full of hot air (pun definitely intended)?

I'm voting the latter (surprise, surprise).

Did you read the article? Did you read your subject line? Did you read your post?

1) The article actually says pretty much the opposite of what you think it does.
2) Your subject makes it seem like scientists promote global warming when they're against it.
3) That was a sin against puns.

Why would anyone advocate global warming? I can't see the benefit in increasing the global temperature.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2f4cc62e-5b0d-4b59-8705-fc28f14da388

There you have it: a report--not from FNC--that a highly respected scientist, not from the US and not employed by those evil US corporations, and one who was among the first to sound the alarm, now thinks global warming is overhyped.

Could it be that the vast right-wing conspiracy now controls Canadian media and French scientists? Or is it that the whole issue really is overhyped, and that Al Gore et al. are full of hot air (pun definitely intended)?

I'm voting the latter (surprise, surprise).
I'm sure we can watch the character assassination on M. Allegre begin. After all, it isn't nice to expose a fraud.

Wow, this so totally supports your belief that global warming is a bunch of liberal malarky.


Nice selection. There were better in the actual expository part of the article.

His break with what he now sees as environmental cant on climate change came in September, in an article entitled "The Snows of Kilimanjaro" in l' Express, the French weekly. His article cited evidence that Antarctica is gaining ice and that Kilimanjaro's retreating snow caps, among other global-warming concerns, come from natural causes. "The cause of this climate change is unknown," he states matter of factly. There is no basis for saying, as most do, that the "science is settled."

Nice selection. There were better in the actual expository part of the article.

None of which supports what the OP states in the title and the content. Try harder, conspiracy theorists.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/con-allegre-ma-non-troppo/

btw, antarctica is actually losing ice. oops.

this, of course, is in contradiction to the earlier predictions that it would gain ice because the increased temps would increase the moisture content of the air there. and this does work, to some extent. but the warmer ocean temps and a feedback melt water drill effect are causing rapid collapses of the ice shelves on the margins. and those were acting as dams, holding up the continental ice. not so much anymore.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/con-allegre-ma-non-troppo/

How much you want to be New Mitanni doesn't read it?

*Sigh*

"The cause of this climate change is unknown," he states matter of factly.

Well then. So no matter what, it's better to be safe than sorry, no?

I'm sure we can watch the character assassination on M. Allegre begin. After all, it isn't nice to expose a fraud.

does pointing out that his argument is both stupid and factually wrong count as character assassination?

Well then. So no matter what, it's better to be safe than sorry, no?

no. when in doubt, always double the atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, that's what i always say.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/con-allegre-ma-non-troppo/
Thanks for the link.
no. when in doubt, always double the atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, that's what i always say.Lol.

no. when in doubt, always double the atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, that's what i always say.

I was listening to a report yesterday where one scientist had another theory.

CO2 is dissolved in the oceans. The warmer the oceans, the more CO2 is released. If it stays cool, and in the oceans long enough, microorganisms and plankton absorb the CO2 in their bodies and fall to the ocean floor.

The question he posed was, is it getting warmer, and releasing more CO2, or is it more CO2 making it warmer?

And if your calculations (in all these other studies) are ignoring the capacity for the oceans to release CO2, are they flawed?

Of course, they'll shout him down as well...

If he's right, it would be better to contaminate the oceans with fertilizer runoff (which today is called an environmental no-no), because it would provide more microorganisms to absorb the CO2.

But go ahead, stomp down anyone with a different idea...

I was listening to a report yesterday where one scientist had another theory.

CO2 is dissolved in the oceans. The warmer the oceans, the more CO2 is released. If it stays cool, and in the oceans long enough, microorganisms and plankton absorb the CO2 in their bodies and fall to the ocean floor.

The question he posed was, is it getting warmer, and releasing more CO2, or is it more CO2 making it warmer?

considering we have a well-known connection between greenhouse gases and temperature, it seems to me that at best you or the reporter are misunderstanding what was being said. the CO2 is going up regardless, because we are removing geologically stored carbon and putting it into the air. now, the warming this causes is thought likely to have some secondary 'gas booms' by causing oceans and tundra to heat up and release some additional stores of CO2 and methane and whatnot. but these are not the sources for the current increase. we know with near certainty what those sources are, and they're us.


And if your calculations (in all these other studies) are ignoring the capacity for the oceans to release CO2, are they flawed?

maybe. good thing nobody has done that, eh?

oh, and in case anyone was wondering how increasing temps in antarctica could possibly be expected to create more ice, i'd remind you that antarctica is really fucking cold. even all the way up at mcmurdo, the winter temperatures could increase by 10 degrees celsius and it would still be ridiculously cold out.

I find the National Post to be the most right wing of Canada's national newspapers. So I ignored the messenger and went to the source.

Here (http://www.lexpress.fr/idees/tribunes/dossier/allegre/dossier.asp?ida=451670) is the original article by Allegre.

free Soviet's link further upstream correctly points out some flaws in Allegre's article. It is, however, nice to see these examples of skepticism in the scientific community.

does pointing out that his argument is both stupid and factually wrong count as character assassination?
Of course. All facts are biased and evil anyway.
no. when in doubt, always double the atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, that's what i always say.
I always say "When in doubt, blow up a Zeppelin". But that's just me. :)

I find the National Post to be the most right wing of Canada's national newspapers. So I ignored the messenger and went to the source.

Here (http://www.lexpress.fr/idees/tribunes/dossier/allegre/dossier.asp?ida=451670) is the original article by Allegre.

free Soviet's link further upstream correctly points out some flaws in Allegre's article. It is, however, nice to see these examples of skepticism in the scientific community.

Well, he isn't saying that global warming isn't real. He isn't saying that mankind has no role in global warming. He is saying that global warming is overhyped and distracts from true ecological threats and scientific progress.

Something that I've heard from a certain insane clown who occasionally hangs around this forum. :)

Well, he isn't saying that global warming isn't real. He isn't saying that mankind has no role in global warming. He is saying that global warming is overhyped and distracts from true ecological threats and scientific progress.

Something that I've heard from a certain insane clown who occasionally hangs around this forum. :)
There's more than one?? :eek:

*Flees*

Man am I glad a real scientist thinks that "Global Warming" is a natural cycle of the earth.

"His article cited evidence that Antarctica is gaining ice and that Kilimanjaro's retreating snow caps, among other global-warming concerns, come from natural causes."

As far as Al Gore goes....my mommy doesn't let me use words like that....:eek:

Man am I glad a real scientist thinks that "Global Warming" is a natural cycle of the earth.

shame about the being stupidly wrong part though

Man am I glad a real scientist thinks that "Global Warming" is a natural cycle of the earth.

Shame about the fact that it would mean that there is nothing humans could do to stop the climate change, and how many of the disasters that loom in the horizon will come to pass... :(

I've discovered human cloning! :D

:eek: :eek: !

*Heads for the hills*

Edit: Lets' do the timewarp... aaw, it's been done :(

There's more than one?? :eek:

*Flees*

I've discovered human cloning! :D

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2f4cc62e-5b0d-4b59-8705-fc28f14da388

There you have it: a report--not from FNC--that a highly respected scientist, not from the US and not employed by those evil US corporations, and one who was among the first to sound the alarm, now thinks global warming is overhyped.

Could it be that the vast right-wing conspiracy now controls Canadian media and French scientists? Or is it that the whole issue really is overhyped, and that Al Gore et al. are full of hot air (pun definitely intended)?

I'm voting the latter (surprise, surprise).

Meh.

As far as Al Gore goes....my mommy doesn't let me use words like that....:eek:

Sexyback? :p

shame about the being stupidly wrong part though

I'm sure your qualifications are at least equal to his, since you feel competent to make such a statement. At what university do you hold a professorship in climatology, planetary science, meteorology or the like?

Right. Just as I thought.

So Michael Criton thinks eviromentalism is the largest religion in the West and that its leading us into a new Dark Age.

see... Eviromentalism as a Religion (http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/index.html):

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/16836601.htm

Oh, according to NS Generalites, another idiot.

Care to address the points he raises?

Wow - the water hasn't risen in Stockholm in ages...

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/16836601.htm

Oh, according to NS Generalites, another idiot.

Care to address the points he raises?

Wow - the water hasn't risen in Stockholm in ages...

It's official: The San Jose Mercury News is now part of the vast right-wing conspiracy.

Before you know it, they'll be cited with approval on :eek: the Fox News Channel!

I'm sure your qualifications are at least equal to his, since you feel competent to make such a statement. At what university do you hold a professorship in climatology, planetary science, meteorology or the like?

Right. Just as I thought.

credentials don't technically matter in science. what matters is evidence. and he got his wrong.

"All the experts agree: if global warming takes place, it will be much more important close to the poles than at the equator. However these authors explain that in certain places of the Antarctic continent there is a massive destruction of the ice-barrier, but that elsewhere there is thickening of the ice. Then, is there global warming or not?"

notice, of course, that he doesn't mention that this was actually a prediction of climate change theory. of course he doesn't, that would make him look like a tool.

Wow - the water hasn't risen in Stockholm in ages...

post-glacial rebound. look it up.

How about providing a source of what other accredited scientists are replying to this? Or are they part of the vast left-wing environmentalist conspiracy?

I'm sure your qualifications are at least equal to his, since you feel competent to make such a statement. At what university do you hold a professorship in climatology, planetary science, meteorology or the like?

Right. Just as I thought.

Which is why we should probably trust the scientific consensus by those who are actually qualified in this field that you know... anthropogenic global warming is occurring. You know?

Honestly, all it sounds like he's saying is that the science of global warming is not yet settled, yet we should take preventative measures just to be safe and avoid alarmism in favor of solutions and real progress against emissions. If anything, it sounds more like hedging our bets than recanting global warming.

He realizes a very important thing: by regulating emissions, we lose nothing and gain quite a bit in areas unrelated to global warming.

I for one would rather regulate emissions and thereby replace fossil fuels like oil and natural gas with renewable and alternative sources like nuclear or wind. It would free us from having to kiss the Saudis' asses and would free us from being controlled by repressive, destructive regimes that hate us.

*Sigh*



Well then. So no matter what, it's better to be safe than sorry, no?

Doesn't justify acting like totalitarian fascists who will only let one side of the argument through and then propagate and demonate the other side despite it being well backed up as well with many high up scientists supporting it. I believe in climate change, but this widely held fantasy that only one side is completely correct and opponents are earth hating fanatical maniacs is rediculous.

Doesn't justify acting like totalitarian fascists who will only let one side of the argument through and then propagate and demonate the other side despite it being well backed up as well with many high up scientists supporting it. I believe in climate change, but this widely held fantasy that only one side is completely correct and opponents are earth hating fanatical maniacs is rediculous.

Totalitarian fascists...I think I'll start using that for myself:D

I'm sure your qualifications are at least equal to his, since you feel competent to make such a statement. At what university do you hold a professorship in climatology, planetary science, meteorology or the like?

Right. Just as I thought.
Pot. Meet Kettle.

Oh, and:But Dr. Allegre had allegiances to more than his socialist and environmental colleagues. He is, above all, a scientist of the first order, the architect of isotope geodynamics, which showed that the atmosphere was primarily formed early in the history of the Earth, and the geochemical modeller of the early solar system. Because of his path-breaking cosmochemical research, NASA asked Dr. Allegre to participate in the Apollo lunar program, where he helped determine the age of the Moon. Matching his scientific accomplishments in the cosmos are his accomplishments at home: Dr. Allegre is perhaps best known for his research on the structural and geochemical evolution of the Earth's crust and the creation of its mountains, explaining both the title of his article in l' Express and his revulsion at the nihilistic nature of the climate research debate.

You'll note that he is not a climate scientist, either. His point, however (and I mean his actual one, not the one New Mitanni would have you believe he is making) is valid. There is a danger that the actual science can be obscured by talking points and posturing.

If he's right, it would be better to contaminate the oceans with fertilizer runoff (which today is called an environmental no-no), because it would provide more microorganisms to absorb the CO2.

But go ahead, stomp down anyone with a different idea...

There are various problems with this idea, while it may look attractive at first glance. Messing with the oceanic food cycle is a bad idea in general, but if you increase the downward flux of carbon in the oceans, there is some speculation that it could cause turnover of the oceans. This is a bad idea if there is anoxic H2S rich bottom waters loitering around. I'm getting this from my lecture notes, so you'll forgive the absence of a link. I'll see what I can find.

Doesn't justify acting like totalitarian fascists who will only let one side of the argument through and then propagate and demonate the other side despite it being well backed up as well with many high up scientists supporting it. I believe in climate change, but this widely held fantasy that only one side is completely correct and opponents are earth hating fanatical maniacs is rediculous.

except that the opponents quite literally got nothin'. and until they do, they can shut up. despite what they may have learned from the creationists, science don't operate by press release and well supported theories ain't brought down by finding a single hole somewhere - especially since the holes they see are mostly imaginary (again, like the creationists).

except that the opponents quite literally got nothin'. and until they do, they can shut up. despite what they may have learned from the creationists, science don't operate by press release and well supported theories ain't brought down by finding a single hole somewhere - especially since the holes they see are mostly imaginary (again, like the creationists).

A prime example of someone whos bought into this nonsensicle propagander:

Zomgz dey r creationists!!!one

So Michael Criton thinks eviromentalism is the largest religion in the West and that its leading us into a new Dark Age.

Is he mad? Hardly anyone is doing anything for the environment. How is that "the largest religion in the West"?

Doesn't justify acting like totalitarian fascists who will only let one side of the argument through and then propagate and demonate the other side despite it being well backed up as well with many high up scientists supporting it. I believe in climate change, but this widely held fantasy that only one side is completely correct and opponents are earth hating fanatical maniacs is rediculous.
I agree that all sides should be heard. I also agree that if there's any doubt that the climate change is influenced by man, we should still take precautions and limit emission. I truly believe in the "better safe than sorry"-policy. And from the serious debate I hear, that's what the scientific comunity is preaching as well. They're pointing out the folly of the "we're not 100% sure yet, so let's do nothing until we know everything"-idea, which is that by the time we know for sure it might all be too late if the worst case scenario is the correct one.

Oh, and:

The Deniers -- The National Post's series on scientists who buck the conventional wisdom on climate science

The full Deniers series
Statistics needed -- The Deniers Part I
Warming is real -- and has benefits -- The Deniers Part II
The hurricane expert who stood up to UN junk science -- The Deniers Part III
Polar scientists on thin ice -- The Deniers Part IV
The original denier: into the cold -- The Deniers Part V
The sun moves climate change -- The Deniers Part VI
Will the sun cool us? -- The Deniers Part VII
The limits of predictability -- The Deniers Part VIII
Look to Mars for the truth on global warming -- The Deniers Part IX
Limited role for C02 -- the Deniers Part X
End the chill -- The Deniers Part XI
Clouded research -- The Deniers Part XII
Allegre's second thoughts -- The Deniers XIII
Agenda, much?

If this counts as an exposé for those of you searching for any reason to bury your heads further into the sand, it does sort of speak of your desperation...

http://www.cms.pentalk.org/images/public/stock/vetcall/head%20in%20sand.jpg

I'm sure your qualifications are at least equal to his, since you feel competent to make such a statement. At what university do you hold a professorship in climatology, planetary science, meteorology or the like?

Right. Just as I thought.

Of course, because you do?

Why would anyone advocate global warming? I can't see the benefit in increasing the global temperature.

lmao

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2f4cc62e-5b0d-4b59-8705-fc28f14da388

There you have it: a report--not from FNC--that a highly respected scientist, not from the US and not employed by those evil US corporations, and one who was among the first to sound the alarm, now thinks global warming is overhyped.

Could it be that the vast right-wing conspiracy now controls Canadian media and French scientists? Or is it that the whole issue really is overhyped, and that Al Gore et al. are full of hot air (pun definitely intended)?

I'm voting the latter (surprise, surprise).

Apologies to those following threads with close attention, I'm in a scattershot mood.
Let's have a bet, you and me. Fifty quid, that's a hundred dollars in your rapidly-devaluing currency (I don't even need to check if you're American, if you're on THIS forum talking THAT bullshit then you're an American). In fifty years time, I am betting that the average summer will be significantly hotter than it is now. So an ordinary person would definitely notice.
I'm fairly certain I'd win this bet. Compare the average seasonal cycle in your hometown to what it was fifty years ago. Come on, everyone, the information's there, do it. You'll almost invariably find that it has changed at a rate which any scientist would tell you is alarming. Never mind if there's snow here or snow there on one random winter, or if there's one particularly rainy summer, I'm talking averages and trends here, and I'm asking you to study your local area. It scarcely matters where you are, if you study these trends in your area you will find precisely how human-induced climate change is affecting your home town.
This is my first and only post on the subject of climate change, unless anybody comes up with an objection that is worth dignifying with a response. I simply don't have the time to debate this subject with people who "see no reason" to change their way of life. I would suggest that in many such cases the motivation is purely selfish.
My carbon footprint's tiny, before anybody says anything.

Oh, by the way, on a tangentially related subject... Eisenhower was a dick.

Nice selection. There were better in the actual expository part of the article.

Here here. Good way to cut to the heart of the matter Myrmidonisia.

I was listening to a report yesterday where one scientist had another theory.

CO2 is dissolved in the oceans. The warmer the oceans, the more CO2 is released. If it stays cool, and in the oceans long enough, microorganisms and plankton absorb the CO2 in their bodies and fall to the ocean floor.

The question he posed was, is it getting warmer, and releasing more CO2, or is it more CO2 making it warmer?

And if your calculations (in all these other studies) are ignoring the capacity for the oceans to release CO2, are they flawed?

Of course, they'll shout him down as well...

If he's right, it would be better to contaminate the oceans with fertilizer runoff (which today is called an environmental no-no), because it would provide more microorganisms to absorb the CO2.

But go ahead, stomp down anyone with a different idea...

That is what I was getting from it. He is not denying global warming. He is denying the hype of it. About time someone denied the hype of Global Warming. It has been vastly overhyped and now it is coming to light.

I find the National Post to be the most right wing of Canada's national newspapers. So I ignored the messenger and went to the source.

Here (http://www.lexpress.fr/idees/tribunes/dossier/allegre/dossier.asp?ida=451670) is the original article by Allegre.

free Soviet's link further upstream correctly points out some flaws in Allegre's article. It is, however, nice to see these examples of skepticism in the scientific community.

Agreed. It is good to see skepticism.

Well, he isn't saying that global warming isn't real. He isn't saying that mankind has no role in global warming. He is saying that global warming is overhyped and distracts from true ecological threats and scientific progress.

Something that I've heard from a certain insane clown who occasionally hangs around this forum. :)

You mean like me? Seems like something I've stated from time to time on this board.

As far as Al Gore goes....my mommy doesn't let me use words like that....:eek:

LMAO!!!!!

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/16836601.htm

Oh, according to NS Generalites, another idiot.

Care to address the points he raises?

Wow - the water hasn't risen in Stockholm in ages...

You know Fass can't do that Eve Online.

Honestly, all it sounds like he's saying is that the science of global warming is not yet settled, yet we should take preventative measures just to be safe and avoid alarmism in favor of solutions and real progress against emissions. If anything, it sounds more like hedging our bets than recanting global warming.

He realizes a very important thing: by regulating emissions, we lose nothing and gain quite a bit in areas unrelated to global warming.

I for one would rather regulate emissions and thereby replace fossil fuels like oil and natural gas with renewable and alternative sources like nuclear or wind. It would free us from having to kiss the Saudis' asses and would free us from being controlled by repressive, destructive regimes that hate us.

I could not agree with you more Vetalia.

Pot. Meet Kettle.

Oh, and:

You'll note that he is not a climate scientist, either. His point, however (and I mean his actual one, not the one New Mitanni would have you believe he is making) is valid. There is a danger that the actual science can be obscured by talking points and posturing.

Hear! Hear!

Apologies to those following threads with close attention, I'm in a scattershot mood.
Let's have a bet, you and me. Fifty quid, that's a hundred dollars in your rapidly-devaluing currency

I am well aware of the value of the pound relative to the dollar. Currencies fluctuate.

(I don't even need to check if you're American, if you're on THIS forum talking THAT bullshit then you're an American).

If you're on any forum with that attitude, I don't even need to check if you're a typical Euro-twit leftie. But since you bring it up, and since you obviously don't know where Southern California is, I am proud to be an American.

In fifty years time, I am betting that the average summer will be significantly hotter than it is now. So an ordinary person would definitely notice.

I wish you'd been around in the 1970's. I would have loved to have made that bet, since the Chicken Littles of the world, of which I have no doubt you would have been one, were all running around in a panic over the impending new ice age. Back then, global cooling was all the rage.

I'm fairly certain I'd win this bet. Compare the average seasonal cycle in your hometown to what it was fifty years ago. Come on, everyone, the information's there, do it. You'll almost invariably find that it has changed at a rate which any scientist would tell you is alarming. Never mind if there's snow here or snow there on one random winter, or if there's one particularly rainy summer, I'm talking averages and trends here, and I'm asking you to study your local area. It scarcely matters where you are, if you study these trends in your area you will find precisely how human-induced climate change is affecting your home town.

First off, fifty years is not much of a time frame. Try looking at the last five hundred years, or the last two thousand years.

Second, the overall climate may indeed be warming. The issues are whether it's (a) a legitimate global phenomenon (b) that would not be occurring in the absence of human activity.

From the arguments and evidence I have seen, I am not convinced. I'm not convinced that temperature increases, to the extent they've been measured in industrialized nations, aren't inaccurate for a number of reasons, such as being measured in urban areas where asphalt and concrete retain more heat and thus produce exaggerated readings. Nor am I convinced that any temperature rise that is actually occurring is not due primarily to natural causes.

This is my first and only post on the subject of climate change

Thank you.

I simply don't have the time to debate this subject with people who "see no reason" to change their way of life.

Feel free to debate any issue you want with anyone who inhabits your comfortable little leftie world and thinks just like you do.


My carbon footprint's tiny, before anybody says anything.

Color me impressed. My carbon footprint's huge, and it's going to stay that way.

Oh, by the way, on a tangentially related subject... Eisenhower was a dick.

Brit, WWII: Americans are overpaid, oversexed and over here.
American, WWII: Brits are underpaid, undersexed and under Eisenhower. :D

Why would anyone advocate global warming? I can't see the benefit in increasing the global temperature.

But it's SNOWING in TORONTO!

Honestly, all it sounds like he's saying is that the science of global warming is not yet settled, yet we should take preventative measures just to be safe and avoid alarmism in favor of solutions and real progress against emissions. If anything, it sounds more like hedging our bets than recanting global warming.

He realizes a very important thing: by regulating emissions, we lose nothing and gain quite a bit in areas unrelated to global warming.

I for one would rather regulate emissions and thereby replace fossil fuels like oil and natural gas with renewable and alternative sources like nuclear or wind. It would free us from having to kiss the Saudis' asses and would free us from being controlled by repressive, destructive regimes that hate us.


Exactly. He favors environmental awareness as a whole as opposed to focusing our attention, resources and panic on climate change; knowing that a mistake in attempting to manipulate climate could end up making things worse.

You mean like me? Seems like something I've stated from time to time on this board.

Have a taco. :) *hands you a taco.*

A prime example of someone whos bought into this nonsensicle propagander:

Zomgz dey r creationists!!!one

yes, it's all nonsensical propaganda that denialists just can't seem to manage to do any fucking research at all. and clearly it is some conspiracy on my side that makes them continually trot out the most ridiculous and easily disproved bullshit for years on end with absolutely no recognition that there is a problem with doing so.

if it smells like a creationist, argues like a creationist, and fails at life like a creationist, i'ma callin' it a creationist.

Have a taco. :) *hands you a taco.*

YUM YUM!!

I wish you'd been around in the 1970's. I would have loved to have made that bet, since the Chicken Littles of the world, of which I have no doubt you would have been one, were all running around in a panic over the impending new ice age. Back then, global cooling was all the rage.

yes yes, and lady hope heard darwin recant evolution on his deathbed

One of the things I've been waiting to hear is for a climate-change denier to try to explain why anyone, much less the vast majority of the scientific community, as well as increasing numbers of policy-makers, industry leaders, and everyday people would want to perpetuate such a hoax that would require drastic and difficult changes to the way we live. I'm just curious what kind of mass psychosis or conspiracy theory would make the deniers' claim convincing.

That said, I think Allegre has some good points, once you cut through all the misinterpretation and spin people are throwing on his statement. Climate change is a big problem. It is not the only problem. We should try to solve it, and solve our other problems as well.

I'm sure your qualifications are at least equal to his, since you feel competent to make such a statement. At what university do you hold a professorship in climatology, planetary science, meteorology or the like?

Right. Just as I thought.

How about you? What are some of your degrees? Come on now - you are so very close to finally disproving for once and all this liberal, athiest, terrorist-loving conspiracy. Don't give up. Bust out with some credentials that means we should listen to you or anything you post.

How about you? What are some of your degrees? Come on now - you are so very close to finally disproving for once and all this liberal, athiest, terrorist-loving conspiracy. Don't give up. Bust out with some credentials that means we should listen to you or anything you post.

You didnt know? NM works at Harvard. For the Illuminati. He knows whats going to be said and where, thus not needing credentials when you are always right.

PhD in Quantum Bullshit Mechanics.

You didnt know? NM works at Harvard. For the Illuminati. He knows whats going to be said and where, thus not needing credentials when you are always right.

PhD in Quantum Bullshit Mechanics.

He does the kind of math where two experts are better than two thousand. Creationist math.

Eviromentalism is the new religion.

I can tell you that second hand smoke is not a health hazard to anyone and never was, and the EPA has always known it. I can tell you that the evidence for global warming is far weaker than its proponents would ever admit. I can tell you the percentage the US land area that is taken by urbanization, including cities and roads, is 5%. I can tell you that the Sahara desert is shrinking, and the total ice of Antarctica is increasing. I can tell you that a blue-ribbon panel in Science magazine concluded that there is no known technology that will enable us to halt the rise of carbon dioxide in the 21st century. Not wind, not solar, not even nuclear. The panel concluded a totally new technology-like nuclear fusion-was necessary, otherwise nothing could be done and in the meantime all efforts would be a waste of time. They said that when the UN IPCC reports stated alternative technologies existed that could control greenhouse gases, the UN was wrong.

I can, with a lot of time, give you the factual basis for these views, and I can cite the appropriate journal articles not in whacko magazines, but in the most prestigious science journals, such as Science and Nature. But such references probably won't impact more than a handful of you, because the beliefs of a religion are not dependent on facts, but rather are matters of faith. Unshakeable belief.

-Michael Criton

:cool:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2f4cc62e-5b0d-4b59-8705-fc28f14da388

There you have it: a report--not from FNC--that a highly respected scientist, not from the US and not employed by those evil US corporations, and one who was among the first to sound the alarm, now thinks global warming is overhyped.

Could it be that the vast right-wing conspiracy now controls Canadian media and French scientists? Or is it that the whole issue really is overhyped, and that Al Gore et al. are full of hot air (pun definitely intended)?

I'm voting the latter (surprise, surprise).
Long ago, I dismissed you as a Bush puppet, parrot, propagandist and once again you verify my personal observation. Keep up the good work....squawk!! :p

Eviromentalism is the new religion.

I can tell you that second hand smoke is not a health hazard to anyone and never was, and the EPA has always known it. I can tell you that the evidence for global warming is far weaker than its proponents would ever admit. I can tell you the percentage the US land area that is taken by urbanization, including cities and roads, is 5%. I can tell you that the Sahara desert is shrinking, and the total ice of Antarctica is increasing. I can tell you that a blue-ribbon panel in Science magazine concluded that there is no known technology that will enable us to halt the rise of carbon dioxide in the 21st century. Not wind, not solar, not even nuclear. The panel concluded a totally new technology-like nuclear fusion-was necessary, otherwise nothing could be done and in the meantime all efforts would be a waste of time. They said that when the UN IPCC reports stated alternative technologies existed that could control greenhouse gases, the UN was wrong.

I can, with a lot of time, give you the factual basis for these views, and I can cite the appropriate journal articles not in whacko magazines, but in the most prestigious science journals, such as Science and Nature. But such references probably won't impact more than a handful of you, because the beliefs of a religion are not dependent on facts, but rather are matters of faith. Unshakeable belief.

-Michael Criton

:cool:

Have you not read anything? Get a clue, man. :headbang:

Have you not read anything? Get a clue, man. :headbang:
He's apparently read Michael Crichton, though he doesn't know how to spell the man's name. That doesn't say much for either his intelligence or his taste in fiction.

Why would anyone advocate global warming? I can't see the benefit in increasing the global temperature.

I do. I hate winter. I hate the cold. I live in WI.... But its horrible of me. And it will only result in massive death and destruction of our planet. But I hate winter so much.

I do. I hate winter. I hate the cold. I live in WI.... But its horrible of me. And it will only result in massive death and destruction of our planet. But I hate winter so much.

Oy, haven't you seen the Day After Tomorrow? It will get so cold that choppers will freeze in mid-air and half the world will be covered in ice. All in less than a week.

Know you know, and knowing is half the battle.

I can tell you that a blue-ribbon panel in Science magazine concluded that there is no known technology that will enable us to halt the rise of carbon dioxide in the 21st century. Not wind, not solar, not even nuclear. The panel concluded a totally new technology-like nuclear fusion-was necessary, otherwise nothing could be done and in the meantime all efforts would be a waste of time. They said that when the UN IPCC reports stated alternative technologies existed that could control greenhouse gases, the UN was wrong.

What? This Science magazine panel is actually saying: 'We're all screwed, when is someone going to start taking this seriously?'
I'm not sure what Crichton's take on it was (maybe he was just talking about the futility of using token gestures to combat pollution) but are you advancing this as evidence that we can continue to ignore the problem?

Long ago, I dismissed you as a Bush puppet, parrot, propagandist and once again you verify my personal observation. Keep up the good work....squawk!! :p

Pardon me, you've mistaken me for someone who gives a rat's ass.

Pardon me, you've mistaken me for someone who gives a rat's ass.

Why the hell does anyone actually respond to you anymore? You'd think by now everyone would've just looked at an NM post and gone, "Let's not feed the troll this time."

You didnt know? NM works at Harvard.

Harvard?! *blech!* Actually I graduated from MIT.

For the Illuminati.

The Illuminati fnord do not fnord exist.

He knows whats going to be said and where,

When it comes to certain posters on this board, including every one on my ignore list, you are correct.

thus not needing credentials when you are always right.

When I characterize an expert's position in any given field as "stupid", "idiotic," etc., then I will need to have credentials. I haven't done so here. I have simply stated that I find the Al Gore global warming view unconvincing, and that I agree with the dissenters. The ones who seem to be asserting they're "always right" are those who put down those who disagree with the Al Gore global warming orthodoxy as "deniers."

PhD in Quantum Bullshit Mechanics.

Coming from someone who's flung more fecal material than a jungle's worth of chimpanzees, that statement is quite amusing.

Harvard?! *blech!* Actually I graduated from MIT.



The Illuminati fnord do not fnord exist.



When it comes to certain posters on this board, including every one on my ignore list, you are correct.



When I characterize an expert's position in any given field as "stupid", "idiotic," etc., then I will need to have credentials. I haven't done so here. I have simply stated that I find the Al Gore global warming view unconvincing, and that I agree with the dissenters. The ones who seem to be asserting they're "always right" are those who put down those who disagree with the Al Gore global warming orthodoxy as "deniers."



Coming from someone who's flung more fecal material than a jungle's worth of chimpanzees, that statement is quite amusing.

So in other words, you enjoy having sex with corpses?

He's apparently read Michael Crichton, though he doesn't know how to spell the man's name. That doesn't say much for either his intelligence or his taste in fiction.

Spelling and grammar are products of an evil left-wing conspiracy. And I don't care what you think, Jurassic Park and Timeline were awesome books.

What? This Science magazine panel is actually saying: 'We're all screwed, when is someone going to start taking this seriously?'
I'm not sure what Crichton's take on it was (maybe he was just talking about the futility of using token gestures to combat pollution) but are you advancing this as evidence that we can continue to ignore the problem?

Who's not taking this seriously? Who is ignoring this? Is there even a problem we should be concerned about? If there is a problem, maybe we should focus on what we can do about it and not waste our time trying to use expensive new technologies that don't work well.

Who's not taking this seriously? Who is ignoring this? Is there even a problem we should be concerned about? If there is a problem, maybe we should focus on what we can do about it and not waste our time trying to use expensive new technologies that don't work well.

Well according to those scientists, whose opinions were relied on by Crichton in the quote you posted,
i) Everyone who counts
ii) Everyone who counts
iii) Yes
iv) Well, obviously

So in other words, you enjoy having sex with corpses?

SIG QUOTED.