NationStates Jolt Archive

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has issued another report, this one describing the dire effects that will come to pass in the next several decades:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070311/D8NPKSRG2.html

But there’s one part of the report that exposes the nefarious plot on the part of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Halliburton and the rest of the evil Western establishment. Can you find it?













Here it is:

“The hardest-hit continents are likely to be Africa and Asia, with major harm also coming to small islands and some aspects of ecosystems near the poles. North America, Europe and Australia are predicted to suffer the fewest of the harmful effects.”

Exposed! :eek:

By not doing anything about “global warming,” by not reducing emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, by not shrinking the US economy, Bush plans to keep the yellow, brown and black man down! The populations of Africa and Asia will be hard-hit and thus decrease relative to the populations of North America, Europe and Australia, i.e., the white nations, and their economies will be ripe for exploitation. Thus, the “deniers” are actually seeking to reimpose the hegemony of white Western imperialists on Third World peoples!!

Expect an announcement by Michael Moore, George Soros, and Al Gore and his flock of Chicken Littles. Howard Dean is scheduled to rant on the subject and is expected to raise millions for the DNC.

America-haters and conspiratorialists on this board (and you know who you are) no doubt are thrilled to see yourselves vindicated, so here's your chance to let us have it :headbang:

You give Bush far too much credit. He didn't ratify the Kyoto protocols because he's a muppet and Big Oil has it's hand up his ass. :)

Go back to your bridge, troll. You've already admited you're one so find a new line, m'k?

nyeah?

What "evidence" do global warming skeptics usually present to "refute" the well-established evidence (supported by every credible scientist) provided by those who are not global warming skeptics?

You give Bush far too much credit. He didn't ratify the Kyoto protocols because he's a muppet and Big Oil has it's hand up his ass. :)

Not a pleasant mental image there. :eek:

You've already admitted you're one so find a new line, m'k?

Where was this?

Where was this?
That's one part of it. The other part of it is the satisfaction I get from stirring up the inmates in the leftie asylum. That has turned out to be remarkably easy to do. All I have to do is refer to the Fox News Channel, or thumb my nose at some item of leftie orthodoxy like global warming, and the usual suspects go into spasms like a gerbil up Richard Gere's ass.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12418061&postcount=149

If that's not a textbook def of trolling...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12418061&postcount=149

If that's not a textbook def of trolling...

In Internet terminology, a troll is a person who enters an established community such as an online discussion forum and intentionally tries to cause disruption, often in the form of posting messages that are inflammatory, insulting, incorrect, inaccurate, absurd, or off-topic, with the intent of provoking a reaction from others. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29)

Yup, sounds like it to me.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12418061&postcount=149

If that's not a textbook def of trolling...

Perhaps if that were my sole and only motivation, which, alas, it is not. Partial credit only for you, I'm afraid. But I appreciate your careful research.

My purpose this time, since I apparently need to spell it out, is to satirize Bush-haters and Americaphobes, both here and elsewhere. He's been the subject of seven years of hatred, slander, ridicule, abuse and vitriol, all without foundation, on every topic from his foreign policy to his IQ. I am not entirely being tongue-in-cheek in suggesting that someone would actually pick up on this report and make exactly the allegation I have presented, since so many others have made so many other idiotic statements about him.

And I'm also surprised Fox didn't pick up on this and include it in tonight's "Half Hour News Hour". Maybe next week ;)

He's been the subject of seven years of hatred, slander, ridicule, abuse and vitriol, all without foundation, on every topic from his foreign policy to his IQ.

Replace the bolded words with "well deserved."

Perhaps if that were my sole and only motivation, which, alas, it is not. Partial credit only for you, I'm afraid. But I appreciate your careful research.
Still trolling, and STILL against forum rules. And since you've already gotten a vacation, one would have thought you would have learned to knock it off.

My purpose this time, since I apparently need to spell it out, is to satirize Bush-haters and Americaphobes, both here and elsewhere. He's been the subject of seven years of hatred, slander, ridicule, abuse and vitriol, all without foundation, on every topic from his foreign policy to his IQ. I am not entirely being tongue-in-cheek in suggesting that someone would actually pick up on this report and make exactly the allegation I have presented, since so many others have made so many other idiotic statements about him.
We KNOW what you're doing and you're STILL trolling.

By not doing anything about “global warming,” by not reducing emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, by not shrinking the US economy, Bush plans to keep the yellow, brown and black man down!I have to say this bit interested me the most... Brown and Black man? You have an interesting view on race.

Still trolling, and STILL against forum rules. And since you've already gotten a vacation, one would have thought you would have learned to knock it off.

"Vacation"? If you're referring to the time I was locked out, it was for replying to someone else's post without editing some content or other that the mods found objectionable--and which I had no idea I was obliged to do, by the way--not for my own content.


We KNOW what you're doing and you're STILL trolling.

I suggest you apply that definition to all posters. Or is it just people who, say, support the President or oppose Al Gore that you object to?

I have to say this bit interested me the most... Brown and Black man? You have an interesting view on race.

Many people consider those from the Indian subcontinent to be "brown." Maybe that's what he meant? *shrug*

Many people consider those from the Indian subcontinent to be "brown." Maybe that's what he meant? *shrug*

Satire, my friend, satire. The original phrase, which had some currency in the US, was just "keeping the black man down," but in the interest of inclusiveness I added other vernacular references. It's not supposed to be anthropologically precise.

Satire, my friend, satire. The original phrase, which had some currency in the US, was just "keeping the black man down," but in the interest of inclusiveness I added other vernacular references. It's not supposed to be anthropologically precise.Oh... I wouldn't have guessed that on my own. You just seemed to be on a rant rather than writing a satirical piece.

snippitytrollysnip
Trollin' Trollin' Trollin'

Keep trollin', trollin', trollin',
Though they're disapprovin',
Keep them mods workin'
Trollhide!
Don't try to understand me,
Just give me enough rope to hang me,
Soon I'll be banned high and wide.
Boy my mind's calculatin'
The mods they will be waitin',
be waiting at the end of my ride.

Move 'em on, flame 'em up,
Flame 'em up, piss 'em off,
Piss 'em off, head 'em out
Trollhide!
Slander 'em out, Libel 'em in
Libel 'em in, insult 'em out,
Insult 'em out, snide 'em in
Trollhide.

Trollin' Trollin' Trollin'

Keep trollin', trollin', trollin',
Though they're disapprovin',
Keep them mods workin'
Trollhide!
Don't try to understand me,
Just give me enough rope to hang me,
Soon I'll be banned high and wide.
Boy my mind's calculatin'
The mods they will be waitin',
be waiting at the end of my ride.

Move 'em on, flame 'em up,
Flame 'em up, piss 'em off,
Piss 'em off, head 'em out
Trollhide!
Slander 'em out, Libel 'em in
Libel 'em in, insult 'em out,
Insult 'em out, snide 'em in
Trollhide.

Best. Parody. Ever.

*tosses you a beer*

I suggest you apply that definition to all posters. Or is it just people who, say, support the President or oppose Al Gore that you object to?

Nope, a troll is someone who specifically goes around with the express purpose of riling people up. Rabble rousers or firebrands they're called when they do it in public. On the internet, it's called trolling.

And as you've admitted on this very thread, you're doing just that.

If I went around posting images of your baby pictures after they've been photoshopped (handlebar moustaches, red eyes, goatee, you get the picture), and posting inciendary comments about you, that'd be called flaming.

If I went to Stormfront and started preaching anti-supremacy messages, I'd be called in for trolling.

You're just coming onto a forum where the population is cosmopolitan and less one sided with the intent of making it one sided.

Actually, doesn't that make sense? No, obviously Bush isn't part of an EBIL CONSPIRACY to destroy nonwhites, but it's perfectly plausible he just can't be bothered with the rest of the world and is happy to watch it all go to hell. After all, Australia didn't sign Kyoto either.

....because no country will actually uphold the Kyoto Treaty but only the US will be held accountable for not doing so - for most countries it's better PR to just sign and not bother upholding whereas if the US signed it would be castigated endlessly.

Australia on the other hand is simply pure evil

You give Bush far too much credit. He didn't ratify the Kyoto protocols because he's a muppet and Big Oil has it's hand up his ass. :)

cameroi, and my mundane self, both have to totaly aggree with this position. it isn't race, belief, even idiology as such, that the corporatocracy really gives a dam about. just what does and does not kiss its own ass.

and it's not exactly a matter of giving a dam either, rather remember, this is an automatic self agrandising mechanism, completely ignorant of even its own intrests beyond immediate feduciary "gain".

just so happens that by being what it is and doing what it does that it has reached the point now, where it essentialy destroys everything in its path.

it did indeed start out making it possible for the evolution of tecnology to overcome the obstical that had previously inhibited it of other forms of fanatacism. by doing so it gave us the 20th century.

even by the 50s though it had begun to approach its own point of diminishing returns, which by the early 70s it had past. about the only thing worth a dam it has given us since then are these computers and the internet.

but the price we have paid and continue paying for it not having collapsed is one of increasingly universal tyranny.

if anyone, any living awairness, walking arround in a tangable life form body, expects to remain unscathed by the collapse of the web of life, this is got to be some ultimate of ignorance.

not that the total collapse of the web of life is as yet known to be inevitable at this point, but rather what is so far known is that it IS highly probable as an outcome of a number of factors we ARE directly contributing to that we totaly don't have to. and by not having to i mean not totally having to give up our comfort zones that we, those of us fortunate enough to have them, have become so addictedly emotionaly attatched to.

proven alternatives have been arround for decades, centuries and millinea.

the obstical to them is of course however, as correctly pointed out, the politics of conscousless economic interests. themselves gratuitous and unneccessary as well. but again, being the automatic mechanism that they are, they can be expected to remain indifferent to the intrests of any and all actual living organisms, even those which make up its own components.

the one thing anyone can do, the one thing everyone needs to do, is to choose their priorities according to the kind of world they want to live in. or, as specificly addressed here, if they/we, even want there to continue to be such a thing as our own human species living in it.

i'm sure the rocks won't miss us, and the rest of the universe will hardly ever immagine we had ever existed if we don't.

=^^=
.../\...

Not the climate change scaremongering again.

Climate change IS a natural phenomenon.

Climate change ALWAYS HAS BEEN a natural phenomenon.

Climate change CANNOT be stopped. Do they really think they can order the climate to stop changing? Well maybe they can also order the tectonic plates to stop shifting or order volcanoes to stop erupting.

What kind of gullible fools do they take us for? This is just another attempt to impose more taxes on the middle class.

The Kyoto protocol never has been about 'saving' the climate, but about getting control of the world economy. If you can have an international body under the UN and give it control over what you can and cannot emit, it would have de facto control over the world economy.

Most Co2 emissions are natural anyway.

....because no country will actually uphold the Kyoto Treaty

O, rly? (http://www.sweden.se/templates/cs/NewsML____12744.aspx?newsid=1387)

Not the climate change scaremongering again.

Yeah, supplant it with a big dollop of burrowing your wilfully ignorant head in the sand!

What "evidence" do global warming skeptics usually present to "refute" the well-established evidence (supported by every credible scientist) provided by those who are not global warming skeptics?

By what evidence are you denying that climate change is a natural phenomenon? The only thing science agrees on 100% is that climate has always changed and it's a natural phenomenon.

IPCC is a political and not a scientific body. And scientists that disagree are not invited.

Yeah, supplant it with a big dollop of burrowing your wilfully ignorant head in the sand!

You cannot stop a natural phenomenon, and I like many others see through the scaremongering scam. Faux science wants our money. Politicians want more taxes. Establish IPCC. Do not invite anyone who disagrees. Deal done.

O, rly? (http://www.sweden.se/templates/cs/NewsML____12744.aspx?newsid=1387)

Yes, rly

...and I'm sure any cite can be refuted but I've tried to find a non-biased source

http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Admin/INF/PR/PR-00.08.25.html

You cannot stop a natural phenomenon, and I like many others see through the scaremongering scam.

Or like religious fundamentalists, refuse to confront the evidence. Like say, evolution, the world being round (there are still some flat earthers out there), the world being a lot older than 6,000 years.

Climate change in most cases is natural, but there are times when it can be affected. Saying that humans can't affect climate on local and global levels is like saying humans can't affect forest habitats even though they can cut down the whole forest or just set it alight.

It's not arrogance that says humans are having an impact on it. Just a statement of fact. To say that humans don't have an impact, well, that's like saying living in a city garbage dump site doesn't have an impact on your health.

Or like religious fundamentalists, refuse to confront the evidence. Like say, evolution, the world being round (there are still some flat earthers out there), the world being a lot older than 6,000 years.

Climate change in most cases is natural, but there are times when it can be affected. Saying that humans can't affect climate on local and global levels is like saying humans can't affect forest habitats even though they can cut down the whole forest or just set it alight.

It's not arrogance that says humans are having an impact on it. Just a statement of fact. To say that humans don't have an impact, well, that's like saying living in a city garbage dump site doesn't have an impact on your health.

It IS arrogance to say we CAN stop it, and basically that is what Al Gore and the rest of the Church of Global Warming (CGW) are all but suggesting. And yes, to the members of the CGW I am a blasphemer!

Didn't Tom DeWeese call global warming 'the new religion', a religion that in the eyes of its followers cannot be questioned?

Yup, sounds like it to me.

By that definition.. I'm a troll! :eek: :(

It IS arrogance to say we CAN stop it, and basically that is what Al Gore and the rest of the Church of Global Warming (CGW) are all but suggesting. And yes, to the members of the CGW I am a blasphemer!

Didn't Tom DeWeese call global warming 'the new religion', a religion that in the eyes of its followers cannot be questioned?

Look, I won't say we can stop climate change, not unless we've got a weather control device somewhere, but we're not exactly helping ourselves in the long term by increasing carbon emmissions the way humanity has been doing for some 200 odd years. We're accelerating the process and it may be going a little too fast to swing back to normal before we're all dead.

Yes, rly

What a well-founded argument to something that completely contradicted you.

You cannot stop a natural phenomenon,

Yes, you can. "Natural" phenomena are stopped, or assuaged, all the time. That is however irrelevant since this current climate change is not very "natural" - if one buys your definition of "natural" as something which is not caused or contributed to by humans.

What a lack of reading posts

So when you wrote "no country will actually uphold the Kyoto Treaty" you meant to write something else? Silly me for reading what you actually wrote.

What a well-founded argument.

What a lack of reading posts

Yes silly you,

If you'd read my post below the 'yes, rly' post, I'd linked to an assessment that there's so many loopholes that it's close to impossible to assess whether Kyoto is being upheld or not

Yes silly you,

If you'd read my post below the 'yes, rly' post, I'd linked to an assessment that there's so many loopholes that it's close to impossible to assess whether Kyoto is being upheld or not

I did read it and it was irrelevant to the report done by the IPPR. But it is fun to see you squirm and go all "whaddaya know, someone might meet the goals of Kyoto even though I claimed no one would? Best claim the goals can't be measured and then post an irrelevancy to show I have no clue how they were measured".

I'm not squirming,

The only reason Sweden and the UK can even claim they're on course is because their power industries already emit little carbon, Sweden being mainly nuclear and hydro and UK trending to gas, the report remains relevant for showing the huge variables allowed under Kyoto.

Interesting to see that Sweden is looking to reduce its dependency on nuclear and how that will affect their targets.

I still applaud Sweden but there's no denying there are large, immeasurable factors in Kyoto

Fact is, no country looks to uphold Kyoto in the face of the economic interests, not Sweden, not the UK, not any government

Not the climate change scaremongering again.

Climate change IS a natural phenomenon.

Climate change ALWAYS HAS BEEN a natural phenomenon.

Climate change CANNOT be stopped. Do they really think they can order the climate to stop changing? Well maybe they can also order the tectonic plates to stop shifting or order volcanoes to stop erupting.

What kind of gullible fools do they take us for? This is just another attempt to impose more taxes on the middle class.

The Kyoto protocol never has been about 'saving' the climate, but about getting control of the world economy. If you can have an international body under the UN and give it control over what you can and cannot emit, it would have de facto control over the world economy.

Most Co2 emissions are natural anyway.
Who needs facts, common sense or science, when you can just have a rant and wear a tin foil helmet instead?

Not the climate change scaremongering again.

Climate change IS a natural phenomenon.

Climate change ALWAYS HAS BEEN a natural phenomenon.

Climate change CANNOT be stopped. Do they really think they can order the climate to stop changing? Well maybe they can also order the tectonic plates to stop shifting or order volcanoes to stop erupting.

What kind of gullible fools do they take us for? This is just another attempt to impose more taxes on the middle class.

The Kyoto protocol never has been about 'saving' the climate, but about getting control of the world economy. If you can have an international body under the UN and give it control over what you can and cannot emit, it would have de facto control over the world economy.

Most Co2 emissions are natural anyway.
Avalanches are a natural event and can't really be stopped. Therefore, it's perfectly safe for us to go into mountain passes setting off small explosives and making extremely loud noises.

Best. Parody. Ever.

*tosses you a beer*
yay! Beer!

F1 Insanity: you might like this video.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638&q=great+global+warming+swindle

Yes, you can. "Natural" phenomena are stopped, or assuaged, all the time. That is however irrelevant since this current climate change is not very "natural" - if one buys your definition of "natural" as something which is not caused or contributed to by humans.

Oh? Human activity is somehow not natural? It's maybe supernatural? Subnatural? Preternatural?

Oh? Human activity is somehow not natural? It's maybe supernatural? Subnatural? Preternatural?
Human activity is not in the normal range of "What happens naturally"
Factories don't just magically appear to belch out smoke.
So in conclusion.

Strawman.

Human activity is not in the normal range of "What happens naturally"
Factories don't just magically appear to belch out smoke.
So in conclusion.

Strawman.

Nor do beaver dams clog up streams. So, in conclusion, you fail.

Trollin' Trollin' Trollin'

Keep trollin', trollin', trollin',
Though they're disapprovin',
Keep them mods workin'
Trollhide!
Don't try to understand me,
Just give me enough rope to hang me,
Soon I'll be banned high and wide.
Boy my mind's calculatin'
The mods they will be waitin',
be waiting at the end of my ride.

Move 'em on, flame 'em up,
Flame 'em up, piss 'em off,
Piss 'em off, head 'em out
Trollhide!
Slander 'em out, Libel 'em in
Libel 'em in, insult 'em out,
Insult 'em out, snide 'em in
Trollhide.

LMAO

Best. Parody. Ever.

*tosses you a beer*

Beer hell, give that man a Keg.

It IS arrogance to say we CAN stop it

i'd like to know what you think of firefighters

What "evidence" do global warming skeptics usually present to "refute" the well-established evidence (supported by every credible scientist) provided by those who are not global warming skeptics?

Usually the climate models behind the IPCC's own research.

The point of credible global warming sceptics isn't that warming isn't happenind, or that we're not responsible. Instead, they argue that the data the IPCC has isn't sufficiently compelling to warrant drastic action. They do this by pointing to any discarded contrary data (stratospheric warming, 1997-2004) or holes in the models (humidity-induced cloud albedo feedbacks).

By that definition.. I'm a troll! :eek: :(

No, you're cool. *gives you a big cookie*

Perhaps if that were my sole and only motivation, which, alas, it is not. Partial credit only for you, I'm afraid. But I appreciate your careful research.

My purpose this time, since I apparently need to spell it out, is to satirize Bush-haters and Americaphobes, both here and elsewhere. He's been the subject of seven years of hatred, slander, ridicule, abuse and vitriol, all without foundation, on every topic from his foreign policy to his IQ. I am not entirely being tongue-in-cheek in suggesting that someone would actually pick up on this report and make exactly the allegation I have presented, since so many others have made so many other idiotic statements about him.

And I'm also surprised Fox didn't pick up on this and include it in tonight's "Half Hour News Hour". Maybe next week ;)

Heh yeah that is because not only is he an easy target, but a very well deserved one too.

That blimmin Bush monkey!

Perhaps if that were my sole and only motivation, which, alas, it is not. Partial credit only for you, I'm afraid. But I appreciate your careful research.
So you admit to being a troll - Not a huge surprise, mind you - but you don't see that being a troll will overshadow any message or point you're trying to get across? Nor that you don't exactly come across as the most credible poster anymore, after trolling for as long as you have...

He's been the subject of seven years of hatred, slander, ridicule, abuse and vitriol, all without foundation, on every topic from his foreign policy to his IQ.
Yeah, surely there's never been anything to ridicule Bush for :rolleyes:

And I'm also surprised Fox didn't pick up on this and include it in tonight's "Half Hour News Hour". Maybe next week ;)
Does anybody still watch that show?

Does anybody still watch that show?

NM apparently does. ;)

NM apparently does. ;)

Maybe that's where he gets the inspiration to troll, because the show wasn't funny either :rolleyes:

Maybe that's where he gets the inspiration to troll, because the show wasn't funny either :rolleyes:

Oh, gross, you actually watched it? :eek:

Yes, you can. "Natural" phenomena are stopped, or assuaged, all the time. That is however irrelevant since this current climate change is not very "natural" - if one buys your definition of "natural" as something which is not caused or contributed to by humans.
Oh? Human activity is somehow not natural? It's maybe supernatural? Subnatural? Preternatural?
I'm sorry Cluich, but if there is some way to dumb down the bolded phrase you completely failed to comprehend the meaning of, I dont know what that way would be.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has issued another report, this one describing the dire effects that will come to pass in the next several decades:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070311/D8NPKSRG2.html

But there’s one part of the report that exposes the nefarious plot on the part of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Halliburton and the rest of the evil Western establishment. Can you find it?



He's also going to hurt Europe and America according to your logice because global warming impacts them too, this is the Republican's plan to wipe out the human race and all life on the planet. :eek: So much for his death star plans. :p









Here it is:

“The hardest-hit continents are likely to be Africa and Asia, with major harm also coming to small islands and some aspects of ecosystems near the poles. North America, Europe and Australia are predicted to suffer the fewest of the harmful effects.”

Exposed! :eek:

By not doing anything about “global warming,” by not reducing emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, by not shrinking the US economy, Bush plans to keep the yellow, brown and black man down! The populations of Africa and Asia will be hard-hit and thus decrease relative to the populations of North America, Europe and Australia, i.e., the white nations, and their economies will be ripe for exploitation. Thus, the “deniers” are actually seeking to reimpose the hegemony of white Western imperialists on Third World peoples!!

Expect an announcement by Michael Moore, George Soros, and Al Gore and his flock of Chicken Littles. Howard Dean is scheduled to rant on the subject and is expected to raise millions for the DNC.

America-haters and conspiratorialists on this board (and you know who you are) no doubt are thrilled to see yourselves vindicated, so here's your chance to let us have it :headbang:

According to your logic this is an attempt to destroy all life on the planet as we know it, because global warming will impact everyone on the globe, hence the name global warming.

Oh? Human activity is somehow not natural?

in addition to fass expressly not endorsing that definition in the quoted post, how could you avoid knowing that it actually is a very common and widely held one?

I'm sorry Cluich, but if there is some way to dumb down the bolded phrase you completely failed to comprehend the meaning of, I dont know what that way would be.


Believe me, it's dumbed down enough, to the point where it's completely invalid. My point with the beavers was that they, like humans, also change their environment to suit their needs -- the very reason why people like to claim that humans don't fall under the "natural" category. And that "reason" is a load of malarky.

in addition to fass expressly not endorsing that definition in the quoted post, how could you avoid knowing that it actually is a very common and widely held one?

Yes, and it was once also commonly and widely held that the earth is flat. Your point?

They do this by pointing to any discarded contrary data (stratospheric warming, 1997-2004)

i like you, you're silly.

for anyone wondering what the complaint is here, llew is saying that we shouldn't discount data that we know is faulty. in this case, he thinks we should use old data after we see a discrepancy between an otherwise well supported theory and one aspect of the evidence, examine the old data and methods, figure out where and how they went wrong, and then gather new data and correct the old data to better capture reality.

or holes in the models (humidity-induced cloud albedo feedbacks).

accounted for as best as we can, and your proposed alternative runs counter to known facts

Yes, and it was once also commonly and widely held that the earth is flat. Your point?

my point is that you seemed genuinely shocked that fass acknowledged that the denialist was operating with that definition in mind and attacked his position from both sides it. which is weird.

You give Bush far too much credit. He didn't ratify the Kyoto protocols because he's a muppet and Big Oil has it's hand up his ass. :)

Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. In the case of Bush, don't attribute anything to malice, it can all be explained by stupidity.

My point with the beavers was that they, like humans, also change their environment to suit their needs -- the very reason why people like to claim that humans don't fall under the "natural" category. And that "reason" is a load of malarky.

that isn't a particularly sophisticated version of the distinction - in fact, i'd bet anyone that held the 'mere modification' distinction would not be convinced to give it up by the existence of beavers, and would instead modify their position to something else that might stand up better. it isn't quite a strawman, because people do hold it, but it is just about the weakest version of the human/nature split possible.

Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. In the case of Bush, don't attribute anything to malice, it can all be explained by stupidity.

Wrong. It can be explained by a combination of the two. ;)

Oh, gross, you actually watched it? :eek:

Yeah, I had to. I wanted to have an informed opinion about the show, and now I can safely say: It sucked because it was not funny!

I'm not one to turn down a good humor show. Had it been a funny "We wish to anger the left" show, I'd still be watching it. Good humor is good humor, regardless of political affiliation. :)

Good humor is good humor, regardless of political affiliation. :)

QFT.

F1 Insanity: you might like this video.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638&q=great+global+warming+swindleHe might, if he wants to be swindled. I just watched it in the background, and it's so full of shit I don't even know where to begin. Pretty much every last fact is misrepresented, and nothing but strawmen are argued against. What a sad, sad pile of trash.

He might, if he wants to be swindled. I just watched it in the background, and it's so full of shit I don't even know where to begin. Pretty much every last fact is misrepresented, and nothing but strawmen are argued against. What a sad, sad pile of trash.

To quote one of the people in the video "The whole thing stinks".

Yes my friend, the video does stink.

He might, if he wants to be swindled. I just watched it in the background, and it's so full of shit I don't even know where to begin. Pretty much every last fact is misrepresented, and nothing but strawmen are argued against. What a sad, sad pile of trash.

holy shit, they used the rush limbaugh volcanoes lie. automatic loss, no possibility of a rematch.

Believe me, it's dumbed down enough, to the point where it's completely invalid.
I'm sorry to observe it's not dumbed down enough for you because you apparently fail to comprehend it's meaning, even when it's been bolded and it's been pointed out to you that you failed to comprehend it the first time. Seriously the people involved in your 'education' have much to answer to for.

My point with the beavers was that they, like humans, also change their environment to suit their needs -- the very reason why people like to claim that humans don't fall under the "natural" category. And that "reason" is a load of malarky.
The point is you directed your comments at the person you were quoting, as though it were their definition, despite the fact that the part of their comments I bolded for your benefit make it clear that they are not asserting the definition you take issue with, and in fact probably dont hold with such a definition themselves (the definition at issue should be attributed to F1 Insane, but since F1 Insane was arguing your point of view, this explains why you didnt have a go at them but criticised Fass about it instead - not that you're utterly transparent or anything...).

Unfortunately if you didnt get this yourself when you read the comment the first time, or even after your erroneous interpretation was pointed out to you, I dont see how you'll be capable of understanding my clarification of the issue (after all it wasnt exactly ambiguous or represented in a complex or unaccessable manner the first time you utterly failed to comprehend), so I'm probably wasting my time here.

Unfortunately if you didnt get this yourself when you read the comment the first time, or even after your erroneous interpretation was pointed out to you, I dont see how you'll be capable of understanding my clarification of the issue (after all it wasnt exactly ambiguous or represented in a complex or unaccessable manner the first time you utterly failed to comprehend), so I'm probably wasting my time here.

especially with all those dependent clauses

i like you, you're silly.

for anyone wondering what the complaint is here, llew is saying that we shouldn't discount data that we know is faulty. in this case, he thinks we should use old data after we see a discrepancy between an otherwise well supported theory and one aspect of the evidence, examine the old data and methods, figure out where and how they went wrong, and then gather new data and correct the old data to better capture reality.
We know now the data are faulty. But for those 7 years they were the best data we had, and they directly contradicted the climate models.

But the intelectually dishonest global warming movement never mentioned that. Never was the possibility of uncertainty ever presented, even though a fundamental piece of their models had been kicked out from under them.
accounted for as best as we can, and your proposed alternative runs counter to known facts
As best we can? That's the best you can do?

We have reason to believe they're a confounding factor. Your inability to do the math isn't enough to simply discard the uncertainty they provide.

Uncertainty is our default position. We should not abandon it without cause.

We know now the data are faulty. But for those 7 years they were the best data we had, and they directly contradicted the climate models.

But the intelectually dishonest global warming movement never mentioned that. Never was the possibility of uncertainty ever presented, even though a fundamental piece of their models had been kicked out from under them.

in my experience, we had plenty of rigorously specified uncertainties that we were willing to talk about at length. perhaps it would be best for you not to rely on msm stories for this sort of thing?

As best we can? That's the best you can do?

yes, by definition.

Uncertainty is our default position. We should not abandon it without cause.In the words of FS: I like you, you're silly.

Not only is it a false dilemma, the very premise you base it on is flawed. We're acting. Since the industrial revolution, we've been doing everything humanly possible to compound the proplem, if it's there. That's hardly the default course of action if there's any great degree of uncertainty.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has issued another report, this one describing the dire effects that will come to pass in the next several decades:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070311/D8NPKSRG2.html

But there’s one part of the report that exposes the nefarious plot on the part of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Halliburton and the rest of the evil Western establishment. Can you find it?













Here it is:

“The hardest-hit continents are likely to be Africa and Asia, with major harm also coming to small islands and some aspects of ecosystems near the poles. North America, Europe and Australia are predicted to suffer the fewest of the harmful effects.”

Exposed! :eek:

By not doing anything about “global warming,” by not reducing emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, by not shrinking the US economy, Bush plans to keep the yellow, brown and black man down! The populations of Africa and Asia will be hard-hit and thus decrease relative to the populations of North America, Europe and Australia, i.e., the white nations, and their economies will be ripe for exploitation. Thus, the “deniers” are actually seeking to reimpose the hegemony of white Western imperialists on Third World peoples!!

Expect an announcement by Michael Moore, George Soros, and Al Gore and his flock of Chicken Littles. Howard Dean is scheduled to rant on the subject and is expected to raise millions for the DNC.

America-haters and conspiratorialists on this board (and you know who you are) no doubt are thrilled to see yourselves vindicated, so here's your chance to let us have it :headbang:

I was about to snicker. Then I found it was you. So I say:

http://www.joemanna.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/roflcopter.gif

that isn't a particularly sophisticated version of the distinction - in fact, i'd bet anyone that held the 'mere modification' distinction would not be convinced to give it up by the existence of beavers, and would instead modify their position to something else that might stand up better. it isn't quite a strawman, because people do hold it, but it is just about the weakest version of the human/nature split possible.
Regardless which human/nature split to which you ascribe, you still have to demonstrate that such a distinction is relevant, or even real.

He might, if he wants to be swindled. I just watched it in the background, and it's so full of shit I don't even know where to begin. Pretty much every last fact is misrepresented, and nothing but strawmen are argued against. What a sad, sad pile of trash.

Heh, I saw that too. It was like watching NS on TV, but with only the deniers talking. Annoying stuff - Dispatches last week was far better.

Busheviks are so detached from reality, they'd be the ones wanting to stay plugged into the Matrix.

I predict that when the climate damage reaches the point where a lot of places look like a Mad Max movie, New Mitanni and F1 Insanity will conveniently blame t3h 3b1l |\/|0zl3|\/|z for the devastation.

I was about to snicker. Then I found it was you. So I say:

http://www.joemanna.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/roflcopter.gif

Yay! The roflcopter. :)

t3h 3b1l |\/|0zl3|\/|z

:confused:

My purpose this time, since I apparently need to spell it out, is to satirize Bush-haters and Americaphobes, both here and elsewhere. He's been the subject of seven years of hatred, slander, ridicule, abuse and vitriol, all without foundation, on every topic from his foreign policy to his IQ.
How do you deduce that there is no foundation for criticising Bush? He is a very immoral and incompetent US President.

What kind of gullible fools do they take us for? This is just another attempt to impose more taxes on the middle class.

The Kyoto protocol never has been about 'saving' the climate, but about getting control of the world economy.
Not the tinfoil hat "communism!" scaremongering again. The majority of the world's opinion, both scientific and public, is of the view that global warming is partially caused by humans. Only right-wing Americans are throwing a tantrum about it for no better reason than groundless paranoia.

O, rly? (http://www.sweden.se/templates/cs/NewsML____12744.aspx?newsid=1387)
Svenska über alles!

You cannot stop a natural phenomenon, and I like many others see through the scaremongering scam. Faux science wants our money. Politicians want more taxes. Establish IPCC. Do not invite anyone who disagrees. Deal done.
You see through it? What do you know that the rest of us don't? (other than the assumption that combatting global warming is about increasing taxes, which politicians always want) :rolleyes:

It IS arrogance to say we CAN stop it, and basically that is what Al Gore and the rest of the Church of Global Warming (CGW) are all but suggesting. And yes, to the members of the CGW I am a blasphemer!

Global warming is not my religion, Christianity is. Global warming cannot be a religion because it is an area of scientific study.

I was about to snicker. Then I found it was you. So I say:

http://www.joemanna.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/roflcopter.gif

This will be my last word on the subject.

I am presently listening to Michael Medved's radio talk show. The topic of the first hour concerned global warming, and specifically the New York Times article reporting criticism (!) of Al Gore's stridency on the subject.

A caller just called Medved and told him that people who dispute man-made global warming are, and I quote, "white supremacists."

I thought I was being satirical, but I must have been prophesying instead.

Now I'm off to rehab with Ann Coulter. See you all in three months. ;)

This will be my last word on the subject.
Somehow I doubt that very, very much indeed.
See you all in three months.
That a promise? Cos I wouldn't mind holding you to it...

Now I'm off to rehab with Ann Coulter. See you all in three months. ;)
Is that how long it takes to lose all connection to reality? 3 months with Ann Coulter? Now that I think about it, that would work.

This will be my last word on the subject.

I am presently listening to Michael Medved's radio talk show. The topic of the first hour concerned global warming, and specifically the New York Times article reporting criticism (!) of Al Gore's stridency on the subject.

A caller just called Medved and told him that people who dispute man-made global warming are, and I quote, "white supremacists."

I thought I was being satirical, but I must have been prophesying instead.

Now I'm off to rehab with Ann Coulter. See you all in three months. ;)
"Idiots on both sides of the debates" shocker?

Get a grip, NM. Not all of us leftists are fanatics who speak only in the languages of Commie and Hyperbole. Not at all.

You give Bush far too much credit. He didn't ratify the Kyoto protocols because he's a muppet and Big Oil has it's hand up his ass. :)

you realize even the worlds enviornmental experts expect that the kyoto protocol will have a highly negligable effect on climate change or reverseing damage to the enviornment relative to the cost benifit anaylisis.

http://climatechange.sea.ca/kyoto_protocol.html

"Even if it were implemented at 100% effectiveness, the Kyoto Protocol barely represents any progress at all, both because its reduction targets are low and emissions in developing countries will continue to grow unchecked"

So what is the usefulness of condeming Bush for rejecting a policy whose effectivness would be limited and whose economic cost would be great ?

"Idiots on both sides of the debates" shocker?

Get a grip, NM. Not all of us leftists are fanatics who speak only in the languages of Commie....

What kind of leftist are you if you don't speak dialectic materialism?

Perhaps if that were my sole and only motivation, which, alas, it is not.

Ha! So you're not a troll, because while you enjoy, and are motivated to, piss people off by posting trash and flamebait, your main motivation is to "satirize" people?

Interesting. I guess it's not really intent if there is more than one intent? I wonder if that would work in court. "Yes I meant to kill him, but I REALLY meant to kill someone ELSE! Therefore... I'm innocent!"

My purpose this time, since I apparently need to spell it out, is to satirize Bush-haters and Americaphobes

Because hating Bush = Americaphobe

He's been the subject of seven years of hatred, slander, ridicule, abuse and vitriol, all without foundation, on every topic from his foreign policy to his IQ.

It must be tough being Jesus Christ. I guess you would know, since you're a Christian bigot yourself, wanting to kill Muslims because they are "infidels."

Come to think of it, you and Bush are nothing like Jesus.

Go away, nazi troll.

What "evidence" do global warming skeptics usually present to "refute" the well-established evidence (supported by every credible scientist) provided by those who are not global warming skeptics?

Actually under Kyoto the only countries required to cut CO2 emissions are those in which CO2 emissions are already being cut because of the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs while countries where the number of factories is increasing aren't to be affected at all (ie China and India)

Global Warming

A couple of statements.

1- We know astonishingly little about every aspect of the environment, from its past history, to its present state, to how to conserve and protect it. In every debate, all sides overstate the extent of existing knowledge and its degree of certainty.

2. WE are in the midst of a natural warming trend that began about 1850, as we emerged from a four-hundred-year cold spell known as the "Little Ice Age".

3. Atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing, and human activity is a probable cause.

4. Nobody knows how much of the present warming trend might be a natural phenomenon.

5. Nobody knows how much of the present warming trend might be man-made.

6. It is never wise to put full faith in a "known" scientific "fact" such as global warming.

7. It is wise to remain skeptical.

8. Nobody knows how much warming will occur in the next century (That of the past century was 1 degree farenheit). The computer models vary by 400 percent, de facto proof that nobody knows. I guess- the only thing anyone is doing, really- would be about .8 degrees C. There is no evidence that my guess about the state of the world one hundred years from now is any better or worse than anyone else's (We can't assess" the future, nor can we "predict" it. These are euphemisms. We can only guess. An informed guess is just a guess.)

9. I suspect that part of the observed surface warming will ultimately be attributable to human activity. I suspect that the principal human effect will come from land use, and that the atmospheric component will be minor if any.

10. Before making expensive policy decisions on the basis of climate models, I think it is reasonable to require that those models predict future temperatures accurately for a period of ten years. Twenty would be better.

11/ There are many reasons to shift away from fossil fuels, and we will do so in the next century without legislation, financial incentives, carbon-conservation programs, or the interminable yammering of fearmongers. So far as I know, nobody had to ban horse transport in the early twentieth century. (Fossil fuels are an admittably better form of transport for the environment, think of a world where land had to be set aside for horse travel to feed and raise horses, to house them, etc.)

12. In the 35 years since the environmental movement came into existence, science has undergone a major revolution, This revolution has brought new understanding of nonlinear dynamics, complex systems, chaos theory, catastrophe theory. It has transfromed the way we think about evolution and ecology. Yet these no-longer-new ideas have hardly penetrated the thinking of environmental activists, which seems oddly fixed in the concepts and rhetoric of the '70's.

13. We desperately need a nonpartison, blinded funding mechanism to conduct research to determine appropriate policy. Scientists are only too aware whom they are working for. Those who fund research- whether a drug company, a government agency, or an environmental organization- always have a particular outcome in mind. Research funding is almost never open-ended or open-minded. Scientists know that continued funding depends on delivering certain results. (Why would they report no global warming if they will then find themselves out of a job?)

14. Everybody has an agenda. Except me. ( :))

Lets look at one case fact as an example... In Iceland the first half of the 20th C. was warmer than the second half as it was in Greenland. Most glaciers lost mass in Iceland after 1930 because summers warmed .6 degree's Celsius but since then the climate has become colder. Since 1970 the glaciers have been steadily advancing. They have regained half the ground lost earlier. (P. Chylek, et al. 2004, "Global Warming and the Greenland ice sheet" Climatic Change 63,201-21 "Since 1940... data have undergone predominantly a cooling trend.... The Greenland ice sheet and coastal redions are not folling any global warming trend."

Somehow I doubt that very, very much indeed.
I don't. Hitting and running is his trademark.

6. It is never wise to put full faith in a "known" scientific "fact" such as global warming.

7. It is wise to remain skeptical.


12. In the 35 years since the environmental movement came into existence, science has undergone a major revolution, This revolution has brought new understanding of nonlinear dynamics, complex systems, chaos theory, catastrophe theory. It has transfromed the way we think about evolution and ecology. Yet these no-longer-new ideas have hardly penetrated the thinking of environmental activists, which seems oddly fixed in the concepts and rhetoric of the '70's.

13. We desperately need a nonpartison, blinded funding mechanism to conduct research to determine appropriate policy. Scientists are only too aware whom they are working for. Those who fund research- whether a drug company, a government agency, or an environmental organization- always have a particular outcome in mind. Research funding is almost never open-ended or open-minded. Scientists know that continued funding depends on delivering certain results. (Why would they report no global warming if they will then find themselves out of a job?)

14. Everybody has an agenda. Except me. ( :))

6 & 7... why must skepticism and caution mean inaction?

12. Rubbish, environmentalists were not talking about global warming in the 70s.

13. How do you know all this? Why would governments or even environmental organisations hope to report global warming? environmental organisations exist partly because of global warming, because there is a need to face reality. Not vice versa.

Governments have no desire to throw away money on non-causes that won't win them votes or corporate donations.

14. You American right-wingers have more of an ideological agenda than anyone else, as proven by some of the posters in this thread. ("it's all a communist conspiracy") are you really all convinced that it's a liberal attempt to destroy capitalism?

What "evidence" do global warming skeptics usually present to "refute" the well-established evidence (supported by every credible scientist) provided by those who are not global warming skeptics?

Evidence has a liberal bias. Equal weight should be given to supposition, stuff pulled out of one's ass, and stuff one hears on FOX.

6. It is never wise to put full faith in a "known" scientific "fact" such as global warming.

but you'd better have a damn impressive reason to believe otherwise

The IPCC reports are admittedly conjecture. I see no reason to take anything they say seriously as none of its many predictions have been proven.

Evidence has a liberal bias. Equal weight should be given to supposition, stuff pulled out of one's ass, and stuff one hears on FOX.

Which would have more weight? A climatologist or the basic skeptic?

Have any of the naysayers shown evidence from climatologists?

Here's a climatologist - http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

I have real issues with global warming in that I simply cannot make up my mind about it. As much as people deride Wikipedia, I think this article is fairly balanced - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

Regardless of it all, there should be no argument that reducing the pollution of both the atmosphere and the ground is beneficial so I suppose the debate is moot.

you realize even the worlds enviornmental experts expect that the kyoto protocol will have a highly negligable effect on climate change or reverseing damage to the enviornment relative to the cost benifit anaylisis.

So what is the usefulness of condeming Bush for rejecting a policy whose effectivness would be limited and whose economic cost would be great ?Kyoto is important because it's the first step. A baby step, but a step no less. Universal ratification means the establishment of the infrastructure needed to take the next steps.1- We know astonishingly little about every aspect of the environment, from its past history, to its present state, to how to conserve and protect it. In every debate, all sides overstate the extent of existing knowledge and its degree of certainty.Your post being a perfect example. Congratulations.3. Atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing, and human activity is a probable cause.By using the word probable, you imply more than one explanation is supported by evidence, but that this seems the more likely one. That's not the case.4. Nobody knows how much of the present warming trend might be a natural phenomenon.And again you manage to imply we don't know the margins. We do.5. Nobody knows how much of the present warming trend might be man-made.This is simply flat out wrong. 6. It is never wise to put full faith in a "known" scientific "fact" such as global warming.It is never wise not to have faith in the best explanation suggested by evidence, which stands up to falsification. This is why people do things like open doors before they attempt to walk through them.7. It is wise to remain skeptical.Up to a point, yes. Naturally skepticism includes not doing the opposite of what appears to be the viable course of action. Quite unlike what we're currently doing.8. Nobody knows how much warming will occur in the next century (That of the past century was 1 degree farenheit). The computer models vary by 400 percent, de facto proof that nobody knows. I guess- the only thing anyone is doing, really- would be about .8 degrees C. There is no evidence that my guess about the state of the world one hundred years from now is any better or worse than anyone else's (We can't assess" the future, nor can we "predict" it. These are euphemisms. We can only guess. An informed guess is just a guess.)There's a difference between imagining things, and extrapolating. www.dictionary.com can explain it for you. Your imaginings are less plausible than predictions based on evidence. Though the evidence is currently incomplete, we have enough, and enough understanding of the mechanics, to know that predictions are, at least, not misleading.9. I suspect that part of the observed surface warming will ultimately be attributable to human activity. I suspect that the principal human effect will come from land use, and that the atmospheric component will be minor if any.I suspect that's a pretty suspect prediction. What's it based on? Wishful thinking?10. Before making expensive policy decisions on the basis of climate models, I think it is reasonable to require that those models predict future temperatures accurately for a period of ten years. Twenty would be better.Before you start making decisions based on ignorance, I suggest you look up how the shit works. Not only are different models useful for different things, they all have a timeframe within which they're most reliable. IPCC can, as always, sort you out.11/ There are many reasons to shift away from fossil fuels, and we will do so in the next century without legislation, financial incentives, carbon-conservation programs, or the interminable yammering of fearmongers. So far as I know, nobody had to ban horse transport in the early twentieth century. (Fossil fuels are an admittably better form of transport for the environment, think of a world where land had to be set aside for horse travel to feed and raise horses, to house them, etc.)You're imagining again. Lacking technology to utilize fossil fuels would mean an end to modern aggriculture. In the absence of alternative technologies, this alone would make aggribusiness & transport sector emissions negligible. But what's the point of speculating about it? We have the technology we have, we use it as we do, and we know the scope of the impact it has. Why not simply deal with it?12. In the 35 years since the environmental movement came into existence, science has undergone a major revolution, This revolution has brought new understanding of nonlinear dynamics, complex systems, chaos theory, catastrophe theory. It has transfromed the way we think about evolution and ecology. Yet these no-longer-new ideas have hardly penetrated the thinking of environmental activists, which seems oddly fixed in the concepts and rhetoric of the '70's.It's fun making shit up, right? 13. We desperately need a nonpartison, blinded funding mechanism to conduct research to determine appropriate policy. Scientists are only too aware whom they are working for. Those who fund research- whether a drug company, a government agency, or an environmental organization- always have a particular outcome in mind. Research funding is almost never open-ended or open-minded. Scientists know that continued funding depends on delivering certain results. (Why would they report no global warming if they will then find themselves out of a job?)While I agree it's required, you're critically misjudging how scientists typically work. When they have something to publish, they do. It's how they keep employed. Incidents where people sit on their research or altogether fake it, are rare.14. Everybody has an agenda. Except me. ( :))At least youi're transparent.Lets look at one case fact as an example... In Iceland the first half of the 20th C. was warmer than the second half as it was in Greenland. Most glaciers lost mass in Iceland after 1930 because summers warmed .6 degree's Celsius but since then the climate has become colder. Since 1970 the glaciers have been steadily advancing. They have regained half the ground lost earlier. (P. Chylek, et al. 2004, "Global Warming and the Greenland ice sheet" Climatic Change 63,201-21 "Since 1940... data have undergone predominantly a cooling trend.... The Greenland ice sheet and coastal redions are not folling any global warming trend."Though half of Greenland and all of Iceland lie in the same subregion of the Arctic, no relationship is implied. Those regions are purely for our convenience (maps and so forth).

Temperatures in Iceland depend almost entirely on near-surface air temperature of the surrounding sea. From 1960 up to today, average annual temperature has decreased by almost 1 deg C over Iceland, primarily because of change in ocean currents.

Conversely, inland Greenland has experienced an average annual increase of about 1 deg C in the same period, most of this occuring in winters, where temperatures have gone up by about 3-5 deg C. Sheet thickness and movement has been measured since 1979.

I haven't read your source, but mine are the IPCC, AMAP, CAFF and IASC, and it should be no trouble verifying it by Googling. I suggest you check out the Arctic Climate Impact Assesment (ACIA) report, as it's also been released in a format that requires no special knowledge (and you clearly have none), and can be downloaded for free here. (http://amap.no/workdocs/index.cfm?action=getfile&dirsub=%2FACIA%2Foverview&filename=ArcticImpacts.pdf&CFID=338&CFTOKEN=F2D576EE-9597-1322-AC0F139A24101C3F&sort=default) It's less than 15MB and in pdf. You're welcome.The IPCC reports are admittedly conjecture. I see no reason to take anything they say seriously as none of its many predictions have been proven.On the contrary. Conjecture is speculation based on insufficient evidence. None of the assessment reports have done anything of the sort. The very reason they exist is to prevent it from happening. You'll have to invent some other excuse for disbelieving reality. I'd suggest insanity if I didn't think it'd offend you (though I can't think why).

Here's a climatologist - http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

I have real issues with global warming in that I simply cannot make up my mind about it. As much as people deride Wikipedia, I think this article is fairly balanced - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

Regardless of it all, there should be no argument that reducing the pollution of both the atmosphere and the ground is beneficial so I suppose the debate is moot.It's tough to talk about 'balance', because the anti-anthropogenic change camp doesn't back up their arguments. At all. Timothy Ball (the guy in your article) is a perfect example. Among his assertions are things like:

* Solar activity adequately explains observed climate change.

* CO2 is not a GHG

* Humans can't impact global climate

The first is the most interesting, because as long as the guy refuses to publish anything on how he can adequately explain it, it requires us to prove a negative. And that obviously can't be done. It's very similar to what you see ID proponents doing.

The second and third are more easily debunked, because even though he also refuses to show the basis for those claims, they don't require us to prove a negative. That CO2 is a GHG is easily demonstrated by observing what happens when it's introduced as a filter at the relevant wavelengths, and contrary to his claim, this has been done already. In fact, observing that effect was what led a sci-fi interested Swede to first speculate mankind might one day be able to introduce enough into the atmos to affect climate change. That was about 100 years ago, by the way, and being a Swede, he naturally thought it was a nice idea.
Likewise, it's ironic he uses the cooling consensus as a strawman, because it's a real, tangible example of how humanity caused climate change twice. First we caused the cooling by emitting enormous amounts of sulfate aerosol - a highly reflective but shortlived aerosol - into the atmos, and then we caused it to stop, by cutting down on our emissions. This is an observed and well understood case of humans directly causing changes to the global climate.

That he procedes to use those events to imply the scientific consensus then and now aren't to be trusted, either means the man is completely uninformed and has been for 40 years, or that he's incredibly dishonest. Because obviously, the consensus on the cooling was to be trusted. Cooling actually took place, and when the causes were addressed, it ceased to take place.

Like I said; ironic. But I think it's very telling the dissenters engage in this kind of intellectual dishonesty, because while it no doubt looks compelling to someone with no special knowledge, it's completely absurd to anyone who does know what he's talking about. Thus it's very compelling to conclude he's intentionally trying to mislead the public, instead of engaging in actual debate.

Of course, things like lying about his credentials & such, doesn't help.

Obviously it's a major problem. I mean, who can deny the validity of the predictions after last years record hurricane season.

Fortunately, we don't have to worry about Ursus Maritimus though, because they all became extinct during the holocene maximum.

It's all a scam.

the US Senate voted in 1997 by a vote of 95-0 to NOT ratify the Kyoto Protocol so Bush isn't at fault

The US Senate voted in 1997 by a vote of 95-0 to NOT ratify the Kyoto Protocol so Bush isn't at faultYou aren't accusing your fellow fanatics on the right of setting up strawmen, are you?

Oh, the irony...

Obviously it's a major problem. I mean, who can deny the validity of the predictions after last years record hurricane season.

snark only works if it's based on reality

You give Bush far too much credit. He didn't ratify the Kyoto protocols because he's a muppet and Big Oil has it's hand up his ass. :)

Totally seconded.

Oh, and, btw, down with trolls.

You give Bush far too much credit. He didn't ratify the Kyoto protocols because he's a muppet and Big Oil has it's hand up his ass. :)

So why did Blessed Bill of Clinton and St. Al of Gore not ratify it then when they were in charge?


Evil El-Presidente Boris , master of the inconvenient question:cool:

As I said before, climate change is and always has been a natural phenomenon.

The left is on a power trip as usual, and this is their wedge issue.

As I said before, climate change is and always has been a natural phenomenon.


Oh, you said it before? Must be true. I'm certainly swayed.


The left is on a power trip as usual, and this is their wedge issue.

Yeah. All those leftist scientists and their leftist data and leftist reason! There's nothing wrong with global air pollution, nothing!

Yeah. All those leftist scientists and their leftist data and leftist reason! There's nothing wrong with global air pollution, nothing!
Hey, it's that liberal bias of reality again.

As I said before, climate change is and always has been a natural phenomenon.

The left is on a power trip as usual, and this is their wedge issue.

Your jokes need work, true, but you made me chuckle.

This whole thing was in an episode of BBC's Spooks like 6 months ago.

BBC fiction writers > US investigations into their government.
As does unbounded opinion, wild speculation and conspiracy theories.

Hey, it's that liberal bias of reality again.

i'm collecting royalties on that phrase, to be split between me and rpp

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has issued another report, this one describing the dire effects that will come to pass in the next several decades:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070311/D8NPKSRG2.html

But there’s one part of the report that exposes the nefarious plot on the part of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Halliburton and the rest of the evil Western establishment. Can you find it?













Here it is:

“The hardest-hit continents are likely to be Africa and Asia, with major harm also coming to small islands and some aspects of ecosystems near the poles. North America, Europe and Australia are predicted to suffer the fewest of the harmful effects.”

Exposed! :eek:

By not doing anything about “global warming,” by not reducing emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, by not shrinking the US economy, Bush plans to keep the yellow, brown and black man down! The populations of Africa and Asia will be hard-hit and thus decrease relative to the populations of North America, Europe and Australia, i.e., the white nations, and their economies will be ripe for exploitation. Thus, the “deniers” are actually seeking to reimpose the hegemony of white Western imperialists on Third World peoples!!

Expect an announcement by Michael Moore, George Soros, and Al Gore and his flock of Chicken Littles. Howard Dean is scheduled to rant on the subject and is expected to raise millions for the DNC.

America-haters and conspiratorialists on this board (and you know who you are) no doubt are thrilled to see yourselves vindicated, so here's your chance to let us have it :headbang:

You are crazy. The IPCC has nothign to do with the Bush administration or the Kyoto protocols. Quit watching so many conspiracy videos and take a chill pill.

I suppose you know exactley what is wrong with the world. Bush is the epidemy of all thats selfish and evil and the IPCC is noble and trying to save the world from certain destruction. Grow up and realize that life isn't anything like STAR WARS.

Jeeze. Buddy you listen to WABC waay too much. (the OP)


my 2 cents. reply if you want but I'll never look at this thread again :p

i'm collecting royalties on that phrase, to be split between me and rpp

LOL, royalties? It'll be DRM next, you'll see. *shakes head*

LOL, royalties? It'll be DRM next, you'll see. *shakes head*

Worry not, comrade. All proceeds will go towards class struggle, thus one day your great great great great great great great... ... ...

...great great great great grandchildren will reap the appropriate refunds. No more, no less.