NationStates Jolt Archive

Yep, another ignorant boob who's obviously on the payroll of the oil companies is publicly denying the Global Warming gospel.

Er, oops, it's actually a former astronaut and U.S. Senator:

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/national/general/view/2009_02_15_Former_astronaut_speaks_out_on_global_warming/srvc=home&position=recent

I especially liked how Sen. Schmitt resigned from The Planetary Society after that group morphed into another Chicken Little Kyoto-phile:


Dan Williams, publisher with the Chicago-based Heartland Institute, which is hosting the climate change conference, said he invited Schmitt after reading about his resignation from The Planetary Society, a nonprofit dedicated to space exploration.

Schmitt resigned after the group blamed global warming on human activity. In his resignation letter, the 74-year-old geologist argued that the "global warming scare is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making."

That last quote could not have been put better.

IMNSHO it is long past time for the "climate change" crowd to face the facts, acknowledge that their alleged "consensus" is no such thing, and get back to doing real science rather than advancing a political agenda.

Natural climate change "deniers" are invited to respond. ;)

Yep, another ignorant boob who's obviously on the payroll of the oil companies is publicly denying the Global Warming gospel.

Er, oops, it's actually a former astronaut and U.S. Senator:

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/national/general/view/2009_02_15_Former_astronaut_speaks_out_on_global_warming/srvc=home&position=recent

I especially liked how Sen. Schmitt resigned from The Planetary Society after that group morphed into another Chicken Little Kyoto-phile:



That last quote could not have been put better.

IMNSHO it is long past time for the "climate change" crowd to face the facts, acknowledge that their alleged "consensus" is no such thing, and get back to doing real science rather than advancing a political agenda.

Natural climate change "deniers" are invited to respond. ;)

I didnt know being a senator and astronaut made you a qualified climatologist.

Sorry NM, Im still going to listen to the experianced scientists who have the data. As opposed to cave trolls like you.

wait, now we are supposed to assume that senators aren't ignorant boobs?

wait, now we are supposed to assume that senators aren't ignorant boobs?

Only the Republican ones. The rest are orcs.


Fort Sumter.

This shit again? Okay, once more with harmony and feeling:

1) The Heartland Institute is a rightwing political organization that generates anti climate change statements as part of their agenda to promote deregulation of business. They say the same shit every single time, and it is never as solid as they claim it is. They are not a reliable source.

2) Global climate change is a fact. Causes are complex and debatable.

3) The debatability of the causes of climate change IS NOT a valid reason to argue against the kinds of environmental regulations and measures that the Heartland Institute opines and lobbies against because there are other, better, more immediate reasons to institute such measures and regulations, including economic reasons, foreign policy reasons, and public health reasons.

wait, now we are supposed to assume that senators aren't ignorant boobs?

obama was senator ??? therefore you assume Obama is an ignorant boob ??

Racist throw him out/ crucify him he hates obama.

Fort Sumter.

Why do people keep saying that?

Global warming may be a bigger hoax than lord Obama's so call Stimulus Bill. Both are costing us Trillions of dollars we don't have.

This shit again? Okay, once more with harmony and feeling:

1) The Heartland Institute is a rightwing political organization that generates anti climate change statements as part of their agenda to promote deregulation of business. They say the same shit every single time, and it is never as solid as they claim it is. They are not a reliable source.

2) Global climate change is a fact. Causes are complex and debatable.

3) The debatability of the causes of climate change IS NOT a valid reason to argue against the kinds of environmental regulations and measures that the Heartland Institute opines and lobbie against because there are other, better, more immediate reasons to institutes such measure and regulations, including economic reasons, foreign policy reasons, and public health reasons.


Youre defending the Dark Lord. You know what that means?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/03/uk_enl_1063882019/img/1.jpg

Global warming may be a bigger hoax than lord Obama's so call Stimulus Bill. Both are costing us Trillions of dollars we don't have.

Two right wing ingnorant trolls in one night? God its like Christmas!

Youre defending the Dark Lord. You know what that means?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/03/uk_enl_1063882019/img/1.jpg
Yummy! :D

Two right wing ingnorant trolls in one night? God its like Christmas!

Three. AGW is a sad joke. In 15 years the left will be back to predicting an incipient ice age - just as in the 1970's. Anything to justify taking further control of the economy.

Three. AGW is a sad joke. In 15 years the left will be back to predicting an incipient ice age - just as in the 1970's. Anything to justify taking further control of the economy.
That never actually happened, you know.

That never actually happened, you know.

Silence Wormtongue

WOO! WE GOT ONE! YEAH! FUCK. YEAH.

*blasts 1812 overture whilst setting off fireworks*

*strips off clothes and runs down the street flailing arms still screaming "WE GOT ONE!"*



Yeah. He's a geologist. Not a climatologist.

I didnt know being a senator and astronaut made you a qualified climatologist.

Sorry NM, Im still going to listen to the experianced scientists who have the data. As opposed to cave trolls like you.

he does have a PHD in geology from Harvard. Which is a very relevant field to global warming.

he does have a PHD in geology from Harvard. Which is a very relevant field to global warming.

Having the degree is not a substitute for work in the field and actually having the research.

That never actually happened, you know.

Pfft, you're so mean, ruining a nice argument with your "facts" and your "reality."

This shit again? Okay, once more with harmony and feeling:

1) The Heartland Institute is a rightwing political organization that generates anti climate change statements as part of their agenda to promote deregulation of business. They say the same shit every single time, and it is never as solid as they claim it is. They are not a reliable source.

2) Global climate change is a fact. Causes are complex and debatable.

3) The debatability of the causes of climate change IS NOT a valid reason to argue against the kinds of environmental regulations and measures that the Heartland Institute opines and lobbies against because there are other, better, more immediate reasons to institute such measures and regulations, including economic reasons, foreign policy reasons, and public health reasons.

I hate it when I enter a debate thread like this only to find out that all I can say is "Listen to Muravyets; she's right."

Only the Republican ones. The rest are orcs.


Fort Sumter.

I believe Andrew Johnson was the only anti-slavery Democratic senator of time, was he not? Yet much to the Democratic Party's credit, he was the President who abolished slavery.

Having the degree is not a substitute for work in the field and actually having the research.

you mean like working for NASA for 15 years???
Its not like they sit on their ass up in space they do research.

Pfft, you're so mean, ruining a nice argument with your "facts" and your "reality."

I see congratulatory posts like this a lot on NSG, but very rarely to posts that don't even contain an argument, merely counter assertion.

I believe Andrew Johnson was the only anti-slavery Democratic senator of time, was he not? Yet much to the Democratic Party's credit, he was the President who abolished slavery.

Johnson was pro-slavery. The 13th, 14th, and 15th ammendment was only passed because the senate was composed of- literally -only far left Republicans and Johnson was powerless to stop them.
you mean like working for NASA for 15 years???
Its not like they sit on their ass up in space they do research.

Since when does NASA research climate change? And even if they do know, I doubt they did when he was a member.

I see congratulatory posts like this a lot on NSG, but very rarely to posts that don't even contain an argument, merely counter assertion.

Do we have to endure another one of your self rightous thread-jacks about what does and doesnt constitute a valid post on NSG?

Pfft, you're so mean, ruining a nice argument with your "facts" and your "reality."

I hate it when I enter a debate thread like this only to find out that all I can say is "Listen to Muravyets; she's right."
Oops, sorry. I should have waited till page 6. ;)

Oops, sorry. I should have waited till page 6. ;)

Stop being right, bitch.

Do we have to endure another one of your self rightous thread-jacks about what does and doesnt constitute a valid post on NSG?

Well, someone has to do it.

Well, someone has to do it.

Actually, they don't.

Stop being right, bitch.
Don't worry. They'll be back to prove how wrong I am soon enough. They'll fail, of course. I mean, it's not as if we haven't had this debate before. I often wonder why people never seem to get tired of posting the same debunked arguments over and over. You'd think that, after one argument gets debunked more than five times, they'd make up a new one.

Besides, it has nothing to do with whether a post is valid or not, I didn't accuse anyone of making an invalid post.

You'd think that, after one argument gets debunked more than five times, they'd make up a new one.

Or wait for the right wing blogs and radio talk show hosts to make up new ones for them.

Because otherwise theyd actually be kind of trying.

Or wait for the right wing blogs and radio talk show hosts to make up new ones for them.

Because otherwise theyd actually be kind of trying.
True. I guess Obama and the stimulus package took up all the time of the people writing the new talking points for 2009. The deadline for getting the list out must have come before they could get to making up new fictions about climate change.

Since when does NASA research climate change? And even if they do know, I doubt they did when he was a member.



Not specifically climate change but things like volcanoes and the atmosphere and interactions there of. Going even farther he is a current professor at University of Wisconsin which means research is likely done.
Also was awarded an honorary fellowship by geological society of America for field work in 84' . Seems like he has been active in research since he got out of the senate in 83'.

Not specifically climate change but things like volcanoes and the atmosphere and interactions there of. Going even farther he is a current professor at University of Wisconsin which means research is likely done.
Also was awarded an honorary fellowship by geological society of America for field work in 84' . Seems like he has been active in research since he got out of the senate in 83'.

Then Id like to see his research.


All though I doubt he has any.

Then Id like to see his research.


All though I doubt he has any.

other then the second part that would be a better answer.


To the OP. your article focuses on his senatorial career and NASA find an article that focuses on his education and scientific achievements.
Scientific debate is not nor should it ever be a popularity contest.

Schmitt said historical documents indicate average temperatures have risen by 1 degree per century since around 1400 A.D., and the rise in carbon dioxide is because of the temperature rise.

Schmitt also said geological evidence indicates changes in sea level have been going on for thousands of years. He said smaller changes are related to changes in the elevation of land masses — for example, the Great Lakes are rising because the earth’s crust is rebounding from being depressed by glaciers.

this...this is really dumb.

Al Gore is a former vice president and U.S. Senator who says global warming is real and caused by man. Who should we believe?

this...this is really dumb.

why is that ?

I see congratulatory posts like this a lot on NSG, but very rarely to posts that don't even contain an argument, merely counter assertion.

When the argument in question has been made several hundred times, I don't really see the need to wait for Mur to say it again before I can agree.

why is that ?

glacial rebound explains sea level rises?

temperatures went up by 1 degree per century during the little ice age?

our emitting gigatons of carbon per year for the past century has nothing to do with the increased amount of carbon in the atmosphere?

just...dumb.

When the argument in question has been made several hundred times, I don't really see the need to wait for Mur to say it again before I can agree.

I'm not saying you don't have to agree, by any means. I think you're missing my point, I can't really be bothered to explain now.

glacial rebound explains sea level rises?

temperatures went up by 1 degree per century during the little ice age?

our emitting gigatons of carbon per year for the past century has nothing to do with the increased amount of carbon in the atmosphere?

just...dumb.

then we are fine. Thought you were about to discount historical sources as means to gauge temperature increase.

Al Gore is a former vice president and U.S. Senator who says global warming is real and caused by man. Who should we believe?

That's simple. Which one has a mustache and a pet cat?

I see congratulatory posts like this a lot on NSG, but very rarely to posts that don't even contain an argument, merely counter assertion.

Wait.....isn't.......that......what you just did?............

Wait.....isn't.......that......what you just did?............

Who did I congratulate?

I didnt know being a senator and astronaut made you a qualified climatologist.

Sorry NM, Im still going to listen to the experianced scientists who have the data. As opposed to cave trolls like you.

I didn't know reading a Wikipedia article on global warming made you an expert.

You officially win Moorington's "Nightly Obtuse Award" for trying to look down upon a distinguished astronaut and Senator because he wasn't "experianced."

I didn't know reading a Wikipedia article on global warming made you an expert.

No one is saying it does. We call this a strawman. Or stupidity.


You officially win Moorington's "Nightly Obtuse Award" for trying to look down upon a distinguished astronaut and Senator because he wasn't "experianced."

I dont look down on him. Im saying he's not a climatologist, thus, his opinion on global climate change is by no means one I take with much weight. When he travels to Antartica, spends years there researching global climate change, and then gets his findings peer reviewed by other climateologists, then maybe Ill listen to what he has to say.

Funny how few climateologists and people with actual experiance in the field come out against global climate change, isnt it?

you mean like working for NASA for 15 years???
Its not like they sit on their ass up in space they do research.

In both of your cases, it depends. At NASA, he could have been a paper shuffler.

Even in his geological work. Was it aimed at the question of Global Climate change? He could have been simply looking for water(research for other planets) or oil.

Though I will admit the anti forces are starting to get better as this guy isn't something like a mathematician which they tend to trot out.

Who did I congratulate?

Yourself! :p

also, schmitt has been an fairly open denialist for over a decade. so this isn't exactly big breaking news.

Why do people keep saying that?

Look up Fort Sumter online. Even Wikipedia will do.

Then click the bottom link in the signature.

And even if you don't get it then, basically it's a sore loser call for Republican-majority states to secede from the Union just because Sauron Obama won the Presidency. Hence the constant use of "Fort Sumter" as mockery.

Only the Republican ones. The rest are orcs.


Fort Sumter.

Like Bill Frist for example. By virtue of being a thoracic surgeon, he's a certified expert on neurological damage and persistent vegetative states like he was during the Terri Schiavo brouhaha.

But the Democrats are all Orcs.

he does have a PHD in geology from Harvard. Which is a very relevant field to global warming.

Apparently that's not good enough for certain people. Maybe they think the earth has no effect on the climate, so people who are experts on the earth have nothing to say about climate. :rolleyes:

Apparently that's not good enough for certain people. Maybe they think the earth has no effect on the climate, so people who are experts on the earth have nothing to say about climate. :rolleyes:

Like I said, if he has field research to contradict the mountians and mountians of hard data and actual research the other side has, lets see it.

If he has no experiance spending months in Antartica gathering data, and hasnt had any of his data peer reviewed, his opinion is close to worthless.

Not as worthless as yours. But close.

Like Bill Frist for example. By virtue of being a thoracic surgeon, he's a certified expert on neurological damage and persistent vegetative states like he was during the Terri Schiavo brouhaha.

But the Democrats are all Orcs.

Don't forget he is such a genious that he can make an off the cuff analysis from a home video......

In both of your cases, it depends. At NASA, he could have been a paper shuffler.

Even in his geological work. Was it aimed at the question of Global Climate change? He could have been simply looking for water(research for other planets) or oil.

Though I will admit the anti forces are starting to get better as this guy isn't something like a mathematician which they tend to trot out.

my understanding is they don't send paper shufflers to space. You normally have to do the hands on research to get into orbit let alone the moon.

His award in 84' was for his work in geo science which is the holistic approach to earth thing as I understand it.

On him is his education and research relevant ? Id say most likely.

Is his data correct ? not a clue i am a history major and i don't care. I got things relevant to my degree to research.

meanwhile, in other news:
Global warming 'underestimated'

The severity of global warming over the next century will be much worse than previously believed, a leading climate scientist has warned.
Professor Chris Field, an author of a 2007 landmark report on climate change, said future temperatures "will be beyond anything" predicted.
Prof Field said the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report had underestimated the rate of change.
He said warming is likely to cause more environmental damage than forecast.
Speaking at the American Science conference in Chicago, Prof Field said fresh data showed greenhouse gas emissions between 2000 and 2007 increased far more rapidly than expected.
"We are basically looking now at a future climate that is beyond anything that we've considered seriously in climate policy," he said.
Prof Field said the 2007 report, which predicted temperature rises between 1.1C and 6.4C over the next century, seriously underestimated the scale of the problem.
He said the increases in carbon dioxide have been caused, principally, by the burning of coal for electric power in India and China.

Wildfires
Prof Field said the impact on temperatures is as yet unknown, but warming is likely to accelerate at a much faster pace and cause more environmental damage than had been predicted.
He says that a warming planet will dry out forests in tropical areas making them much more likely to suffer from wildfires.
The rising temperatures could also speed up the melting of the permafrost, vastly increasing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, Prof Field warns.
"Without effective action, climate change is going to be larger and more difficult to deal with than we thought," he said.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7890988.stm

hmmm...who to believe with regards to climate change: an ex-astronaut Geologist or a Professor of Biology and Environmental Earth System Science at Stanford University and founding director of the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology who specialises in, quote, "integrative studies on the global carbon cycle, and assessments of impacts of climate change on agriculture".
http://globalecology.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/fieldlab/CHRIS/CHRIS.HTML

gosh. It's so darned hard to think who's more qualified to speak out about Climate Change?

Apparently that's not good enough for certain people. Maybe they think the earth has no effect on the climate, so people who are experts on the earth have nothing to say about climate. :rolleyes:

Or maybe they are buying into the BS that it's all natural and that man has no effect.

Maybe they aren't buying the message when you have people that aren't climate researchers arguing it isn't happening and that the climate researchers are all political pawns.

None of the global warming people deny the earth has affect. It's just not as much as you suggest.....

Tuvalu is sinking, the Great Barrier Reef is dying, Australia is burning, yet Global Climate Change is still a conspiracy from Mordor to turn Middle Earth into the Caliphate™.

Figures.

Look, does it matter who's causing global warming? No.

Is it a threat to us? Yes.

Do we have the technology to reverse or slow its progress? Can we adapt to it? It's time to get more conclusive answers to those two questions, not to point fingers. Nobody who knows their stuff is denying that it's happening. It's time to actually do something about it, while we still can.

meanwhile, in other news:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7890988.stm

hmmm...who to believe with regards to climate change: an ex-astronaut Geologist or a Professor of Biology and Environmental Earth System Science at Stanford University and founding director of the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology who specialises in, quote, "integrative studies on the global carbon cycle, and assessments of impacts of climate change on agriculture".
http://globalecology.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/fieldlab/CHRIS/CHRIS.HTML

gosh. It's so darned hard to think who's more qualified to speak out about Climate Change?
Hm....

The guy whose entire career is all about studying and reporting on the climate, what it does and how it does it?

Or the guy who has no on-point expertise on the climate, who has a history of denying climate change with odd theories about rebound and industrialization not making a difference to carbon emissions, and who quit one group because it wasn't anti-climate-change and joined another group because it is?

Gosh, that is a tough one. I wonder which one seems the most motivated by bias rather than observation of actual conditions?

my understanding is they don't send paper shufflers to space. You normally have to do the hands on research to get into orbit let alone the moon.

Actually no. The first three groups were chosen for the jet backgrounds. I think the first true scientist was Gus Grissom. Now the 4th group had scientists(physicists, and our geologist friend)


His award in 84' was for his work in geo science which is the holistic approach to earth thing as I understand it.

On him is his education and research relevant ? Id say most likely.

Is his data correct ? not a clue i am a history major and i don't care. I got things relevant to my degree to research.

The article doesn't explain much but what makes me leary is when you hear comments that anybody talking about global warming is politically motivated. It's a lie and all the climatologists are in collusion to keep a fake science alive. Blah blah blah.....

The article doesn't explain much but what makes me leary is when you hear comments that anybody talking about global warming is politically motivated. It's a lie and all the climatologists are in collusion to keep a fake science alive.
Quite.

Rather than pointing to certain people who deny that humans cause significant climate change, surely NM and others should point to the research and arguments that attest to the insignificance of human affairs on our ecology.

What evidence, for example, does Harrison Schmitt use?

The article doesn't explain much but what makes me leary is when you hear comments that anybody talking about global warming is politically motivated. It's a lie and all the climatologists are in collusion to keep a fake science alive. Blah blah blah.....

I think it is more he is impassioned at the moment cause the group(and he felt should stay out of global warming debate) he used to belong to went that way.
Though politics is an accusation both sides throw at each other.

Though politics is an accusation both sides throw at each other.
Another reason we should look at the arguments and evidence of each 'side', not their presumed champions.

Another reason we should look at the arguments and evidence of each 'side', not their presumed champions.

i agree bring out the data.
I just don't like when someone is discounted because their views don't coincide with whats popular. You have a PHD and field experience you should have a say.

i agree bring out the data.
I just don't like when someone is discounted because their views don't coincide with whats popular. You have a PHD and field experience you should have a say.
Field experience and a PhD in something other than climatology. That really does matter. But hey, as has been said, as soon as his research on this is presented, it will be given all the attention it deserves. Until then, he's just another spokesmodel picked for his looks (figuratively).

Field experience and a PhD in something other than climatology. That really does matter. But hey, as has been said, as soon as his research on this is presented, it will be given all the attention it deserves. Until then, he's just another spokesmodel picked for his looks (figuratively).

Yep, Ive been saying this for a bit now. And New Mitanni and co have yet to provide his research.


I think its because our good friend doesnt have any.

Oh, and for those who doubt Sen. Schmitt's contention that a political agenda underlies the "global warming" crowd, two words: Carol Browner.

As in, life-long left-wing environmental extremist: http://www.undueinfluence.com/carol_browner.htm

As in, the Dark Lord's pick as "global warming czarina" -- a position conveniently not subject to Senate confirmation and, thus, public questioning.

As in, one of 14 leaders of the Socialist International's Commission for a Sustainable World Society, a group dedicated to, among other things, shrinking the economies of the US and other developed countries ("If we are responsible for the future of our planet, we should think of decreasing current consumption levels in developed countries and refraining from superfluous over-consumption. A fair approach to global warming and climate change must be centered on solidarity and aim to reduce the disparity between the developed and the developing countries." St Petersburg Climate Change Seminar of the SI Commission for a Sustainable World Society, Statement section 1, paragraph 8, http://www.socialistinternational.org/viewArticle.cfm?ArticleID=1935&ArticlePageID=1275&ModuleID=18 ) -- a fact which should be per se grounds for disqualification from any public office, let alone a position of authority in any patriotic American administration, but which is fully in accordance with the Dark Lord's socialist orientation.

As in, speaker at the SI 2008 Athens congress ( http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/15/obama-climate-carina-member-socialist-groups-environmental-commission/ ).

As in, someone about whom the Ministry of Truth has attempted to rewrite history by removing her name and biography from the SI web page (unfortunately for them, copies remain in cyberspace: http://www.undueinfluence.com/carol_browner_1.htm
http://www.junkscience.com/jan09/SI_Browner_010209.pdf )

Sen. Schmitt can see where this "global warming" nonsense is heading. Can you?

Field experience and a PhD in something other than climatology. That really does matter. But hey, as has been said, as soon as his research on this is presented, it will be given all the attention it deserves. Until then, he's just another spokesmodel picked for his looks (figuratively).

geology is an interrelated field. almost all the temperatures in the past(before 1850) are from geologist. Most of your PHD professors can make their field relevant to just about anything they want.

Lets see the data. Funny thing is this guy is an advocate of getting He3 on the moon to use as a clean energy source.

geology is an interrelated field. almost all the temperatures in the past(before 1850) are from geologist. Most of your PHD professors can make their field relevant to just about anything they want.

Lets see the data. Funny thing is this guy is an advocate of getting He3 on the moon to use as a clean energy source.
Almost all the temperatures of what? The weather? The ground? Climatological patterns? And how long ago did that stop being a major part of geological research? 1850 you say? And was Schmitt a geologist then, so that his expertise would be on point?

You're the one supporting Schmitt's expertise. You show us the data he used to reach his conclusions. You must have seen him lay out his reasoning somewhere, else how would you know his expertise is relevant?

i agree bring out the data.
Indeed.

Bring out the data.



IMNSHO it is long past time for the "climate change" crowd to face the facts...
Which are?

...acknowledge that their alleged "consensus" is no such thing...
It certainly appears (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change) to be.

...and get back to doing real science rather than advancing a political agenda.
Care to show us, (a) how the science on climate change in the last 50-odd years isn't 'real', or (b) some 'real' science that does support your views.

It's better than pointing at senators all day.



Field experience and a PhD in something other than climatology.
Not that I support Scmitt's views, but climatology isn't the only field one needs be an authority in to have any meaningful say on climate change.

Geologists have their part (I believe geology touches upon how much carbon the Earth can 'capture', for example) and many geologists and geology institutions have announced concerns over man-made climate change.

NM and Scmitt's position seem indefensible, but dismissing geologists per se isn't, I feel, a good move.

Oh, and for those who doubt Sen. Schmitt's contention that a political agenda underlies the "global warming" crowd, two words: Carol Browner.

As in, life-long left-wing environmental extremist: http://www.undueinfluence.com/carol_browner.htm

As in, the Dark Lord's pick as "global warming czarina" -- a position conveniently not subject to Senate confirmation and, thus, public questioning.

As in, one of 14 leaders of the Socialist International's Commission for a Sustainable World Society, a group dedicated to, among other things, shrinking the economies of the US and other developed countries ("If we are responsible for the future of our planet, we should think of decreasing current consumption levels in developed countries and refraining from superfluous over-consumption. A fair approach to global warming and climate change must be centered on solidarity and aim to reduce the disparity between the developed and the developing countries." St Petersburg Climate Change Seminar of the SI Commission for a Sustainable World Society, Statement section 1, paragraph 8, http://www.socialistinternational.org/viewArticle.cfm?ArticleID=1935&ArticlePageID=1275&ModuleID=18 ) -- a fact which should be per se grounds for disqualification from any public office, let alone a position of authority in any patriotic American administration, but which is fully in accordance with the Dark Lord's socialist orientation.

As in, speaker at the SI 2008 Athens congress ( http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/15/obama-climate-carina-member-socialist-groups-environmental-commission/ ).

As in, someone about whom the Ministry of Truth has attempted to rewrite history by removing her name and biography from the SI web page (unfortunately for them, copies remain in cyberspace: http://www.undueinfluence.com/carol_browner_1.htm
http://www.junkscience.com/jan09/SI_Browner_010209.pdf )

Sen. Schmitt can see where this "global warming" nonsense is heading. Can you?
No, because it's too dark up Schmitt's ass.

I see that, rather than present Schmitt's research or arguments, as requested, you have instead opted to present yet another of your conspiracy-like smears against someone associated with Obama. You should put those to music, and hire dancers. I think it would work better.

Oh, and for those who doubt Sen. Schmitt's contention that a political agenda underlies the "global warming" crowd, two words: Carol Browner.

As in, life-long left-wing environmental extremist: http://www.undueinfluence.com/carol_browner.htm

As in, the Dark Lord's pick as "global warming czarina" -- a position conveniently not subject to Senate confirmation and, thus, public questioning.

As in, one of 14 leaders of the Socialist International's Commission for a Sustainable World Society, a group dedicated to, among other things, shrinking the economies of the US and other developed countries ("If we are responsible for the future of our planet, we should think of decreasing current consumption levels in developed countries and refraining from superfluous over-consumption. A fair approach to global warming and climate change must be centered on solidarity and aim to reduce the disparity between the developed and the developing countries." St Petersburg Climate Change Seminar of the SI Commission for a Sustainable World Society, Statement section 1, paragraph 8, http://www.socialistinternational.org/viewArticle.cfm?ArticleID=1935&ArticlePageID=1275&ModuleID=18 ) -- a fact which should be per se grounds for disqualification from any public office, let alone a position of authority in any patriotic American administration, but which is fully in accordance with the Dark Lord's socialist orientation.

As in, speaker at the SI 2008 Athens congress ( http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/15/obama-climate-carina-member-socialist-groups-environmental-commission/ ).

As in, someone about whom the Ministry of Truth has attempted to rewrite history by removing her name and biography from the SI web page (unfortunately for them, copies remain in cyberspace: http://www.undueinfluence.com/carol_browner_1.htm
http://www.junkscience.com/jan09/SI_Browner_010209.pdf )

Sen. Schmitt can see where this "global warming" nonsense is heading. Can you?

lol.


Fort Sumter.

EDIT: No, seriously, do you have Schmitt's research? His data he's collected from his time in the field? Anything? Im open to it.

But, to be honest, I dont think you have it. And not because youre lazy (which you are), but because it doesnt exist.

Not that I support Scmitt's views, but climatology isn't the only field one needs be an authority in to have any meaningful say on climate change.

Geologists have their part (I believe geology touches upon how much carbon the Earth can 'capture', for example) and many geologists and geology institutions have announced concerns over man-made climate change.

NM and Scmitt's position seem indefensible, but dismissing geologists per se isn't, I feel, a good move.
Well, if you'd stick to what I say instead of assuming I'm saying something else beyond that, you'd see that I did not dismiss geologists per se. I am merely asking for proof that Schmitt's expertise is related to this issue. Just being a geologist is not enough. Is he a geologist who works on climate issues? If so, where is his climate-related work, what is his climate-related argument and where is its supporting data?

"Geologist" all by itself does not suggest that a person is qualified to make pronouncements about the global climate.

lol.


Fort Sumter.
Knock it off, won't you?

If you don't want to discuss NM's (laughable) points then don't post, rather than posting spam/flamebait.

Knock it off, won't you?

If you don't want to discuss NM's (laughable) points then don't post, rather than posting spam/flamebait.

Whats to discuss? Unless there is actual research on the table, the answer is nothing.

snip
impressive. 68 posts in, all but a few either refuting your OP, requesting you back up your statements with research and data or providing contra-argument. And what do you do? reply to any of it?
Of course not. Instead just pretend the previous 66 posts didn't exist and post an off-tangent smear attack on someone else entirely for daring to suggest the developed world should try to live sustainably.
very impressive set of blinkers you've got there, NM. I'm surprised you can see anything wearing them.

impressive. 68 posts in, all but a few either refuting your OP, requesting you back up your statements with research and data or providing contra-argument. And what do you do? reply to any of it?
Of course not. Instead just pretend the previous 66 posts didn't exist and post an off-tangent smear attack on someone else entirely for daring to suggest the developed world should try to live sustainably.
very impressive set of blinkers you've got there, NM. I'm surprised you can see anything wearing them.

Look at his signature. It explains everything. :rolleyes:

I just don't get these people. They scare me. :(

Oh, and for those who doubt Sen. Schmitt's contention that a political agenda underlies the "global warming" crowd, two words: Carol Browner.

As in, life-long left-wing environmental extremist: http://www.undueinfluence.com/carol_browner.htm

As in, the Dark Lord's pick as "global warming czarina" -- a position conveniently not subject to Senate confirmation and, thus, public questioning.

As in, one of 14 leaders of the Socialist International's Commission for a Sustainable World Society, a group dedicated to, among other things, shrinking the economies of the US and other developed countries ("If we are responsible for the future of our planet, we should think of decreasing current consumption levels in developed countries and refraining from superfluous over-consumption. A fair approach to global warming and climate change must be centered on solidarity and aim to reduce the disparity between the developed and the developing countries." St Petersburg Climate Change Seminar of the SI Commission for a Sustainable World Society, Statement section 1, paragraph 8, http://www.socialistinternational.org/viewArticle.cfm?ArticleID=1935&ArticlePageID=1275&ModuleID=18 ) -- a fact which should be per se grounds for disqualification from any public office, let alone a position of authority in any patriotic American administration, but which is fully in accordance with the Dark Lord's socialist orientation.

As in, speaker at the SI 2008 Athens congress ( http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/15/obama-climate-carina-member-socialist-groups-environmental-commission/ ).

As in, someone about whom the Ministry of Truth has attempted to rewrite history by removing her name and biography from the SI web page (unfortunately for them, copies remain in cyberspace: http://www.undueinfluence.com/carol_browner_1.htm
http://www.junkscience.com/jan09/SI_Browner_010209.pdf )

Sen. Schmitt can see where this "global warming" nonsense is heading. Can you?

You know that doesn't support your original assertion, don't you?

Here's my question... if the data supports Schmitt, then why when data is requested, do you change the subject?

What you're currently doing is guilt by association and appeal to authority (not even good authority). Those arguing for man-made influence are happy to present data, why is it that all those arguing against it can present is conspiracy theories?

Almost all the temperatures of what? The weather? The ground? Climatological patterns? And how long ago did that stop being a major part of geological research? 1850 you say? And was Schmitt a geologist then, so that his expertise would be on point?

No, stupid, meaning if you have a average global temperature from before 1850 it is
most likely been produced by a geologist normally with ice core samples. from 1850 we were beginning to take temperatures measurements in enough points around the world so that today anyone with access to the measurements and the ability to do a weighted average can ascertain a global average temperature. So if you wish to make the argument that the world has been getting drastically warmer and wish to use more then 150~200 years as an example you need a geologist. (like this guys)
http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/infobank/programs/html/school/keypage/Greenland_Ice_Core_Program.html



You're the one supporting Schmitt's expertise. You show us the data he used to reach his conclusions. You must have seen him lay out his reasoning somewhere, else how would you know his expertise is relevant?
.... I want Schmitt to produce the data, not you dufus.

Whats to discuss? Unless there is actual research on the table, the answer is nothing.
All the more reason not to spam/flamebait.


"Geologist" all by itself does not suggest that a person is qualified to make pronouncements about the global climate.
Oh, quite.

I just wanted to head off at the pass those replies of 'he ain't a climatologist, thus he don't know jack' -- a rather poor retort to a rather poor argument -- and your post was merely a teetering example.

A general point, not an attack on you.

You know that doesn't support your original assertion, don't you?

Here's my question... if the data supports Schmitt, then why when data is requested, do you change the subject?

What you're currently doing is guilt by association and appeal to authority (not even good authority). Those arguing for man-made influence are happy to present data, why is it that all those arguing against it can present is conspiracy theories?

Like Ive been saying since page two, Im always open to new science. If Schmitt has the science, data, and research to back up his assertions, Id genuinly like to look it over.

If he doesnt have any peer review, relevent data out there, then his opinion is basically worthless.

It certainly appears (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change) to be.

indeed (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/97_of_active_climatologists_ag.php)


"Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/upload/2009/01/DoranAndZimmerman2009.png

No, stupid, meaning if you have a average global temperature from before 1850 it is
most likely been produced by a geologist normally with ice core samples. from 1850 we were beginning to take temperatures measurements in enough points around the world so that today anyone with access to the measurements and the ability to do a weighted average can ascertain a global average temperature. So if you wish to make the argument that the world has been getting drastically warmer and wish to use more then 150~200 years as an example you need a geologist. (like this guys)
http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/infobank/programs/html/school/keypage/Greenland_Ice_Core_Program.html


.... I want Schmitt to produce the data, not you dufus.
Apparently, your eagerness to insult me blinded you to the fact that the ice core sample global temperature data would fall under my "Climate patterns" questions.

What happened there? You didn't make the connection because you don't know enough about climate or climate studies to discuss it without namecalling?

Also, do you expect Sen. Schmitt to come post in this forum? If he is making the argument, he must have presented his data somewhere. If you think we should be listening to him, then go find a presentation of his somewhere and show it to us.

Oh, and for those who doubt Sen. Schmitt's contention that a political agenda underlies the "global warming" crowd, two words: Carol Browner.

As in, life-long left-wing environmental extremist: http://www.undueinfluence.com/carol_browner.htm

As in, the Dark Lord's pick as "global warming czarina" -- a position conveniently not subject to Senate confirmation and, thus, public questioning.



I like it. :D Your evidence is spun by a right wing conspiracy theory.

As in, one of 14 leaders of the Socialist International's Commission for a Sustainable World Society, a group dedicated to, among other things, shrinking the economies of the US and other developed countries ("If we are responsible for the future of our planet, we should think of decreasing current consumption levels in developed countries and refraining from superfluous over-consumption. A fair approach to global warming and climate change must be centered on solidarity and aim to reduce the disparity between the developed and the developing countries." St Petersburg Climate Change Seminar of the SI Commission for a Sustainable World Society, Statement section 1, paragraph 8, http://www.socialistinternational.org/viewArticle.cfm?ArticleID=1935&ArticlePageID=1275&ModuleID=18 ) -- a fact which should be per se grounds for disqualification from any public office, let alone a position of authority in any patriotic American administration, but which is fully in accordance with the Dark Lord's socialist orientation.


Whoa are we in the 50's again?

So where in the Constitution does it say no socialists can run for or hold office?


As in, speaker at the SI 2008 Athens congress ( http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/15/obama-climate-carina-member-socialist-groups-environmental-commission/ ).

As in, someone about whom the Ministry of Truth has attempted to rewrite history by removing her name and biography from the SI web page (unfortunately for them, copies remain in cyberspace: http://www.undueinfluence.com/carol_browner_1.htm
http://www.junkscience.com/jan09/SI_Browner_010209.pdf )

Sen. Schmitt can see where this "global warming" nonsense is heading. Can you?

:D Too bad people are tired of the Bogeyman arguments that the shrub handed out during his tenure.

So where is the data to prove man isn't a major contributor to global warming?

Snip

here is a chocolate, go away the adults are talking.

All the more reason not to spam/flamebait.



Oh, quite.

I just wanted to head off at the pass those replies of 'he ain't a climatologist, thus he don't know jack' -- a rather poor retort to a rather poor argument -- and your post was merely a teetering example.

A general point, not an attack on you.
There actually are ways to make general points that don't appear to be directed at a particular poster. One way is to use words like, "this is just a general observation relevant to comments from several sources in the thread..." Another way is to post your comment without quoting anyone. FYI.

here is a chocolate, go away the adults are talking.
I like it when guys like you feel defeated. They always give me chocolate.

I'm not Nanatsu, by the way. I won't react the same way to your little tricks.

I want chocolate too. :( I guess I have to get back into the spirit of NS debate.

How's this? "Your argument is completely illogical for x, y, and z reasons. Now go find something better to do, like hitting yourself repeatedly with a hairbrush."

It doesn't have the same ring to it but I'll work up the proper patronising tone eventually, I promise.

I want chocolate too. :( I guess I have to get back into the spirit of NS debate.

How's this? "Your argument is completely illogical for x, y, and z reasons. Now go find something better to do, like hitting yourself repeatedly with a hairbrush."

It doesn't have the same ring to it but I'll work up the proper patronising tone eventually, I promise.
It takes years of practice. :D

It takes years of practice. :D

Oh sure. It takes years of practice. *sigh* Come back when you have some real, y'know, evidence? Pithy assertions might cut it in politics, but this is NationStates, which is Serious Business....

oh damn, now I'm getting all sarcastic about it, too. This is harder than it looks.

Oh sure. It takes years of practice. *sigh* Come back when you have some real, y'know, evidence? Pithy assertions might cut it in politics, but this is NationStates, which is Serious Business....

oh damn, now I'm getting all sarcastic about it, too. This is harder than it looks.
It needs work, but you're on the right track. :D

All and sundry, stop the personal jibes at New Mitanni and stick to the substance of his post(s).

... his opinion is close to worthless.

Not as worthless as yours. But close.

And not because youre lazy (which you are),

Two right wing ingnorant trolls in one night? God its like Christmas!

As opposed to cave trolls like you.

KoL, let me tell your fortune ... lo, here is a yellow card! This warns of a ban in your future, possibly for ... let me see ... sniping. Act now, while you still have time to avert this evil outcome!

There actually are ways to make general points that don't appear to be directed at a particular poster.
Is that a general point?

EDIT: Or you could:
...stick to what I say instead of assuming I'm saying something else beyond that...

:P

I like it when guys like you feel defeated. They always give me chocolate.

I'm not Nanatsu, by the way. I won't react the same way to your little tricks.

fine here. Paleoclimatology(ice core guys) is considered a branch of geology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology

Climatology is an interrelated field with geology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatology

and one of the fields of study in geology is the study of past climates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology

One last thing *snatches chocolate* gives to Saint Clair Island.

fine here. Paleoclimatology(ice core guys) is considered a branch of geology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology

Climatology is an interrelated field with geology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatology

and one of the fields of study in geology is the study of past climates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology

One last thing *snatches chocolate* gives to Saint Clair Island.

And I will raise you his organization.

They take corporate donations but you have to ask for a report to see who is donating.

Take a look at the papers and draw your conclusions:

http://www.annapoliscenter.org/skins/default/display.aspx?moduleid=8cde2e88-3052-448c-893d-d0b4b14b31c4&mode=User&action=display_page&ObjectID=c69722a1-5eca-41ba-a492-757235a0218f#judge

*takes the chocolate*

And I will raise you his organization.

They take corporate donations but you have to ask for a report to see who is donating.

Take a look at the papers and draw your conclusions:

http://www.annapoliscenter.org/skins/default/display.aspx?moduleid=8cde2e88-3052-448c-893d-d0b4b14b31c4&mode=User&action=display_page&ObjectID=c69722a1-5eca-41ba-a492-757235a0218f#judge

*takes the chocolate*

yes there are issues with this guy. But is his education / field research irrelevant? No.
best way is to look at his data then pick it apart like pseudoscience if indeed it is. Otherwise you slam the door on a whole lot of other researchers with similar educations.

yes there are issues with this guy. But is his education / field research irrelevant? No.
best way is to look at his data then pick it apart like pseudoscience if indeed it is. Otherwise you slam the door on a whole lot of other researchers with similar educations.

His education? Sure. His research is unknown.

Even then it would depend on his sponsors. If they were gas and power, then yes I would question his data.

That never actually happened, you know.

Yes it did. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
The scientists weren't much for the theory of global cooling, but the media - every bit as leftist then as now - certainly endorsed the idea. One ought not try to rewrite history when discussing it with someone old enough to remember the period in question.

Corporate donations. These of course invalidate anything the recipient may have to say. Fair enough. How many AGW proponents in climatology receive government funding? What makes government grants any less corrupting? Who pays the piper calls the tune. I don't bother with statistics for precisely this reason. Also, I strongly doubt anyone who has posted on this thread - including myself - could understand the data, nor identify any potential flaws in the methodology.

The Earth has warmed slightly in the last century. Is mankind responsible? Who knows? The true issues here are 1) whether we have any cost-effective solutions, and 2) whether this issue should take priority over the 10,000 other issues we face. The answers, as I see them, are 1) at present, we do not; and 2) evaluated rationally, it ought to be somewhere between space-based meteor defense & granting voting rights to dolphins.

To the Left, this is heresy. Why is that? What is it about this issue that generates so much emotion? The Earth is not dying. It has faced far worse extinction events than current rates, and far greater temperature swings than the piddling few degrees Al Gore raves on about. This is not a political debate. It is a religious argument. AGW proponents talk about the Earth much the way Southern Baptists talk about Jesus. Include me out.

Yes it did. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
The scientists weren't much for the theory of global cooling, but the media - every bit as leftist then as now - certainly endorsed the idea.

Did you even read your link?

Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere along with a posited commencement of glaciation. This hypothesis never had significant scientific support, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles, and a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s. Scientific consensus is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but undergone global warming throughout the 20th century

Corporate donations. These of course invalidate anything the recipient may have to say. Fair enough. How many AGW proponents in climatology receive government funding? What makes government grants any less corrupting?

Considering how big the oil lobby is; goverment funding still seems a tad more neutral then direct funding from oil.

Who pays the piper calls the tune. I don't bother with statistics for precisely this reason. Also, I strongly doubt anyone who has posted on this thread - including myself - could understand the data, nor identify any potential flaws in the methodology.

The Earth has warmed slightly in the last century. Is mankind responsible? Who knows? The true issues here are 1) whether we have any cost-effective solutions, and 2) whether this issue should take priority over the 10,000 other issues we face. The answers, as I see them, are 1) at present, we do not; and 2) evaluated rationally, it ought to be somewhere between space-based meteor defense & granting voting rights to dolphins.

To the Left, this is heresy. Why is that? What is it about this issue that generates so much emotion? The Earth is not dying. It has faced far worse extinction events than current rates, and far greater temperature swings than the piddling few degrees Al Gore raves on about. This is not a political debate. It is a religious argument. AGW proponents talk about the Earth much the way Southern Baptists talk about Jesus. Include me out.

:rolleyes:

His education? Sure. His research is unknown.

Even then it would depend on his sponsors. If they were gas and power, then yes I would question his data.

I question his data regardless of who is sponsors are. But i need to see his data and methodology first to attack it.

Did you even read your link?

Did you read what I wrote directly under the link? Your quote from the article says exactly the same thing I did.


Considering how big the oil lobby is; goverment funding still seems a tad more neutral then direct funding from oil.

The FedGov is far larger than the oil lobby. Your logic is... baffling. If you're implying the government has no agenda, consider that any policy which increases bureaucratic power will always have bureaucratic support. The Federal apparatus didn't reach its current size by random chance.

Smilies are cute, but don't add much to the discussion. If you have a substantive argument, why not make it?

this...this is really dumb.

taking a few hundred million years worth of sequestered carbon out of the ground and burning it can't cause any problems. At least that's what the far right keep saying. And we all know how great they are with that science stuff:rolleyes:

Two right wing ingnorant trolls in one night? God its like Christmas!

Oh, the irony. Anyway, back on topic, I don't really want to get into this, because I'll be anal raped by some pseudo-environmentalists who probably all drive everywhere etc.

Smilies are cute, but don't add much to the discussion. If you have a substantive argument, why not make it?

What exactly have you offered? Ebil librawl agenda isn't an argument. Ebil government(you a libert right) with it's agenda for saying global warming exists!

Let me guess it's a secret socialist agenda?

What exactly have you offered? Ebil librawl agenda isn't an argument. Ebil government(you a libert right) with it's agenda for saying global warming exists!

Let me guess it's a secret socialist agenda?


I never suggested anything about liberals nor the Feds being evil. Please respond to me rather than invented caricatures.

Would you agree that bureaucrats tend to favor policies which increase their power and/or budgets? If so, which side of the debate do you suspect they will fund? It's hardly controversial to suggest that corporations fund research which tells things the way they want them told. I'm curious why you expect better behavior from a government lackey than a corporate lackey.

Am I a libertarian? Depends on how you define the term. I expect most libertarians do not share my opinions on several topics, none of which are relevant to this thread. Personally I prefer "hyper-capitalist reactionary".

It is hardly a secret agenda. Quite a few greens are very explicit about the need for Westerners to scale back their standard of living for Gaia's sake. I view that kind of talk with the same skepticism I hold for theories about engrams, telepathy, ghosts, the will of God, and Keynesian economics. As to whether it's a socialist agenda, not really. It will have an indirectly socialist effect, but most progressives have abandoned pure socialism. Their motivation is religious. The Earth is sacred, don'tcha know. It's the anthropogenic that gets Lefties all fired up, not the warming. If CO2 levels prove to be less a factor than solar cycles & humans turn out not to be the primary cause, the smug self-righteousness will shift to something else.

For every square mile of land submerged by rising seas, there may be ten square miles made newly habitable by the thawing of permafrost. Or one. Or none. No one really knows. So why throw billions of dollars at a poorly-defined & possibly insoluble problem when we can't even cover our current expenses?

Read the business section of your local paper. The global economy is rapidly swirling down the toilet bowl. Circumstances dictate we prioritize our spending. AGW theory cannot possibly be more important than an imploding housing market & rising unemployment.

Is that a general point?

EDIT: Or you could:


:P
No, actually, it was a comment directed specifically towards you, and it was in response to the words you typed, the ones which you attached to a quote of my post to which I objected, and the ones after that in which you said you weren't referring specifically to me when you quoted me.

fine here. Paleoclimatology(ice core guys) is considered a branch of geology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology

Climatology is an interrelated field with geology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatology

and one of the fields of study in geology is the study of past climates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology

One last thing *snatches chocolate* gives to Saint Clair Island.
Thank you. Sadly, this does not help you, because if you had been reading the rest of the thread, you would know that the interrelatedness of geology into climateology is NOT what I have been disputing. I have been disputing Senator Schmitt's involvement in climateology on the grounds that just being a geologist does not automatically imply expertise on climate issues. That is why I have been asking you for evidence as to Senator Schmitt's expertise and data, not proof about the relation of geology to climateology.

But at least you tried to answer a question. It wasn't the question that was asked, but still, it's better than some others do.

Yes it did. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
The scientists weren't much for the theory of global cooling, but the media - every bit as leftist then as now - certainly endorsed the idea. One ought not try to rewrite history when discussing it with someone old enough to remember the period in question.
Ah, but that was not the implication the original remark I was responding to. It was quite clearly suggesting that it would be the representatives of the science making outlandish predictions. It was clearly equating the people who talked about cooling then being equivalent to those talking about climate change now.

Only as you acknowledge, that was not the case. Only a few individuals engaged in climate science floated the possibility of extreme cooling and a few media outlets that had no expertise picked that up and ran with it for a short while to make an interesting story. It was not major concern among the public, as "global warming" is now, nor was there ever a consensus among the scientific and academic communities about it, as there is on climate change now (see Free Soviets' chart, posted earlier herein).

Therefore, the original claim that the environmentalists would all be predicting horrible but fictitious consequences just like they were all predicting another Ice Age back in the 1970s fails, because there were not widespread predictions of another Ice Age in the 1970s. It was just a flash-in-the-pan fad story that did not last.

Corporate donations. These of course invalidate anything the recipient may have to say. Fair enough. How many AGW proponents in climatology receive government funding? What makes government grants any less corrupting? Who pays the piper calls the tune. I don't bother with statistics for precisely this reason. Also, I strongly doubt anyone who has posted on this thread - including myself - could understand the data, nor identify any potential flaws in the methodology.
I think you will be surprised to learn that quite a few NSGers are scientists and/or statisticians, and some even work in climate related fields, and they understand the data quite well. Hang around long enough, and you will get to know them.

The Earth has warmed slightly in the last century. Is mankind responsible? Who knows? The true issues here are 1) whether we have any cost-effective solutions, and 2) whether this issue should take priority over the 10,000 other issues we face. The answers, as I see them, are 1) at present, we do not; and 2) evaluated rationally, it ought to be somewhere between space-based meteor defense & granting voting rights to dolphins.

To the Left, this is heresy. Why is that? What is it about this issue that generates so much emotion? The Earth is not dying. It has faced far worse extinction events than current rates, and far greater temperature swings than the piddling few degrees Al Gore raves on about. This is not a political debate. It is a religious argument. AGW proponents talk about the Earth much the way Southern Baptists talk about Jesus. Include me out.
And now you devolve into partisan political bullshit. This is the point where I refer you back to my very first post in this thread, on page 1 (you should have no difficulty finding it).

Note particularly, item (3), the one about how there are better and more immediate reasons to apply the kinds of regulations on industry and consumption espoused by environmentalists, which have nothing at all to do with climate change, but everything to do with the economy, foreign policy, and public health.

Would you agree that bureaucrats tend to favor policies which increase their power and/or budgets? If so, which side of the debate do you suspect they will fund?
Not the side of the debate calling for a massive restructuring of society, resulting in non-hierarchical forms of governance, designed as stable, ecologically-sound libertarian municipalities?

There's more to the debate than Al Gore vs. the Heartland Institute, y'know.

As to whether it's a socialist agenda, not really. It will have an indirectly socialist effect, but most progressives have abandoned pure socialism. Their motivation is religious. The Earth is sacred, don'tcha know. It's the anthropogenic that gets Lefties all fired up, not the warming.
Those who push forward the more religious tones of some elements of Gaia theory are certainly not the majority.

I would suggest you educate yourself in the various environmental ethical theories; examine their breadth.

Yep, another ignorant boob who's obviously on the payroll of the oil companies is publicly denying the Global Warming gospel.

Er, oops, it's actually a former astronaut and U.S. Senator:

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/national/general/view/2009_02_15_Former_astronaut_speaks_out_on_global_warming/srvc=home&position=recent

I especially liked how Sen. Schmitt resigned from The Planetary Society after that group morphed into another Chicken Little Kyoto-phile:



That last quote could not have been put better.

IMNSHO it is long past time for the "climate change" crowd to face the facts, acknowledge that their alleged "consensus" is no such thing, and get back to doing real science rather than advancing a political agenda.

Natural climate change "deniers" are invited to respond. ;)


Isn't this an appeal to authority? Like...a logical fallacy? :)

Isn't this an appeal to authority?
Yes it is.

a poorly-defined & possibly insoluble problem

evidence that this is actually the case?

Isn't this an appeal to authority? Like...a logical fallacy? :)

You were expecting logic?

...It is hardly a secret agenda. Quite a few greens are very explicit about the need for Westerners to scale back their standard of living for Gaia's sake. I view that kind of talk with the same skepticism I hold for theories about engrams, telepathy, ghosts, the will of God, and Keynesian economics. As to whether it's a socialist agenda, not really. It will have an indirectly socialist effect, but most progressives have abandoned pure socialism. Their motivation is religious. The Earth is sacred, don'tcha know. It's the anthropogenic that gets Lefties all fired up, not the warming. If CO2 levels prove to be less a factor than solar cycles & humans turn out not to be the primary cause, the smug self-righteousness will shift to something else...

Well, now that you mention agendas...

The most dangerous agenda I can see is coming from the right. Their agenda is to deny human created climate change at all costs because ameliorating its effects requires restraint on individual activities along with intervention at an international level, let alone at a national level. Both concepts, individual restraint and international prescription, are utterly anathema to their ideology.

Never mind that the world fries, so long as individuals can do whatever they want.

Climate change is the biggest threat, not only to us and our planet, but also to the basic premise of right wing individual libertarianism.

Climate change is the biggest threat, not only to us and our planet, but also to the basic premise of right wing individual libertarianism.

Well you know the planet thing you mentioned? Not so much, it will keep on going when we are all gone.

Well you know the planet thing you mentioned? Not so much, it will keep on going when we are all gone.

Indeed. Look at Venus. Greenhouse effect ran wild and its still there. Sure its got crazy temperature variations and sulphuric acid in the atmosphere but its very much not destroyed.

Well you know the planet thing you mentioned? Not so much, it will keep on going when we are all gone.

Well, granted. But I did mean the planet we know, love and abuse.

Well, granted. But I did mean the planet we know, love and abuse.

Umm and that would be a diffwerant one from the planet Earth? *confussed now*:confused:

Indeed. Look at Venus. Greenhouse effect ran wild and its still there. Sure its got crazy temperature variations and sulphuric acid in the atmosphere but its very much not destroyed.

Are you suggesting humans caused Venus to have the atmosphere it currently has?

Are you suggesting humans caused Venus to have the atmosphere it currently has?

No I meant that we lack any sort of ability to damage a planet in the sense of it being a huge lump of rock. We can scuff the surface pretty badly though.

Umm and that would be a diffwerant one from the planet Earth? *confussed now*:confused:

Sigh. I think you're picking nits. The rocks and water will still be there presumably. But the planet will be different.

Are you suggesting humans caused Venus to have the atmosphere it currently has?

That's correct. That is where we all lived until Xenu brought us down to thios loverly rock.:D

Sigh. I think you're picking nits. The rocks and water will still be there presumably. But the planet will be different.

No my fine furry friend, it was your lack of clarity that caused my confusion. You did not originaly say 'differant'.

You said:

'Climate change is the biggest threat, not only to us and our planet, but also to the basic premise of right wing individual libertarianism.'

'Biggest threat to our planet', I read as destruction.

No my fine furry friend, it was your lack of clarity that caused my confusion. You did not originaly say 'differant'.

You said:

'Climate change is the biggest threat, not only to us and our planet, but also to the basic premise of right wing individual libertarianism.'

'Biggest threat to our planet', I read as destruction.

No, I didn't mean destruction.

That's correct. That is where we all lived until Xenu brought us down to thios loverly rock.:D

Blame the Venusian climate change deniers!

No my fine furry friend, it was your lack of clarity that caused my confusion. You did not originaly say 'differant'.

You said:

'Climate change is the biggest threat, not only to us and our planet, but also to the basic premise of right wing individual libertarianism.'

'Biggest threat to our planet', I read as destruction.

Then you chose to read an extreme interpretation. How is "threat" equal to "destruction?" Threats to liveability, or to the sustainability of current lifestyles or population levels are a better interpretation than destruction.

Then you chose to read an extreme interpretation. How is "threat" equal to "destruction?" Threats to liveability, or to the sustainability of current lifestyles or population levels are a better interpretation than destruction.

That is correct, that is the interpretation that I choose to go with given the choice of words, in the context of the thread, and the post, and the posts for which it was a response. Is it really any less viable a choice than the posters actual meaning?

That is correct, that is the interpretation that I choose to go with given the choice of words, in the context of the thread, and the post, and the posts for which it was a response. Is it really any less viable a choice than the posters actual meaning?

...yes.

...yes.

Meh! *shrug* ohh well, and other unconcerned noises.

I hope that helps to clarify my position?:rolleyes:

Let's ask the expert: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw

Meh! *shrug* ohh well, and other unconcerned noises.

I hope that helps to clarify my position?:rolleyes:

Well yes, but I'm not sure to what end you were trying to do so. Yes, you choose your interpretations, yadda yadda yadda. They're still wrong, and obviously not what was meant, and by choosing to focus on them smacks just a little bit of a major diversion from discussing the actual issue.

The issue is not, and never has been, that climate change will physically break apart the planet. :rolleyes: Willing to move on from that already, or am I censoring your right to choose strawmen to burn.

Yep, another ignorant boob who's obviously on the payroll of the oil companies is publicly denying the Global Warming gospel.

Er, oops, it's actually a former astronaut and U.S. Senator:

...

IMNSHO it is long past time for the "climate change" crowd to face the facts, acknowledge that their alleged "consensus" is no such thing, and get back to doing real science rather than advancing a political agenda.

Natural climate change "deniers" are invited to respond. ;)

...:rolleyes: ...yea, because mr.Whathisname used pretty "real-science", "non-advancing-a-political-agenda" arguments.

Being a former astronaut qualifies him as a person who was cleared to fly a spaceship. Not as climate expert.

Being a former US senator qualifies him as former politician. Not as climate expert.

Btw, he's a geologist, not a climatologist.

excerpt from wiki about him:

In August 1975, Schmitt resigned from NASA to seek election as a Republican to the United States Senate representing New Mexico. Schmitt faced two-term Democratic incumbent, Joseph Montoya, whom he defeated 57% to 42%. He served one term and, notably, was the ranking Republican member of the Science, Technology, and Space Subcommittee. He sought a second term in 1982, but due to a deep recession and concerns that he wasn't paying attention to local matters, he was defeated in a re-election bid by the state Attorney General Jeff Bingaman by a 54% to 46% margin. Following his Senate term, he has been a consultant in business, geology, space, and public policy.



He is the founder and serves as chairman of Interlune Intermars Initiative Inc., an organization whose goal is to advance the private sector’s acquisition and use of lunar resources.

(the last part proving that he's also got a mighty ignorance about the international conventions on space and extraterrestrial bodies)

Well yes, but I'm not sure to what end you were trying to do so. Yes, you choose your interpretations, yadda yadda yadda. They're still wrong, and obviously not what was meant, and by choosing to focus on them smacks just a little bit of a major diversion from discussing the actual issue.

The issue is not, and never has been, that climate change will physically break apart the planet. :rolleyes: Willing to move on from that already, or am I censoring your right to choose strawmen to burn.


Heh and you see we are capable of misinturpreting. There is no attempt at diversion from me, nor strawmen, I merely pointed out that when I thought the poster meant both us and the planet may be destroyed by climate change that the planet will outlive us.

That's it really.

Yep, another ignorant boob who's obviously on the payroll of the oil companies is publicly denying the Global Warming gospel.

Er, oops, it's actually a former astronaut and U.S. Senator:

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/national/general/view/2009_02_15_Former_astronaut_speaks_out_on_global_warming/srvc=home&position=recent

I especially liked how Sen. Schmitt resigned from The Planetary Society after that group morphed into another Chicken Little Kyoto-phile:

That last quote could not have been put better.

IMNSHO it is long past time for the "climate change" crowd to face the facts, acknowledge that their alleged "consensus" is no such thing, and get back to doing real science rather than advancing a political agenda.

Natural climate change "deniers" are invited to respond. ;)

You ever notice that there's no huge fuss when someone who previously wasn't buying anthropogenic climate change, decides that they are convinced, after all?

It's kind of scary how desperate the 'denier' agenda is to grab every inch of credibility.

Yes Global warming is another scheme by the ebil leftist NWO to control every aspect of our lives... Yeah right.


Global warming may be a bigger hoax than lord Obama's so call Stimulus Bill. Both are costing us Trillions of dollars we don't have. They see me trollin, and they hatin, they see me trollin and they try and catch me writin dirty.

Thank you. Sadly, this does not help you, because if you had been reading the rest of the thread, you would know that the interrelatedness of geology into climateology is NOT what I have been disputing. I have been disputing Senator Schmitt's involvement in climateology on the grounds that just being a geologist does not automatically imply expertise on climate issues. That is why I have been asking you for evidence as to Senator Schmitt's expertise and data, not proof about the relation of geology to climateology.

But at least you tried to answer a question. It wasn't the question that was asked, but still, it's better than some others do.

There is no such thing as a "Just a Geologist". Since several of the fields of geology involve the study of earth's climate. He is qualified. PHDs do not stick you in a narrow field. Your dissertation might suggest what you specialize teaching, it is fairly easy to do field research anywhere you choose even vaguely with in your degree.

If you going to go with that then "just a climatologist" has little room to speak on global warming. You know why ? because it takes a geologist to get the historical data on temperature pre 1850. Or a history prof to get temperature between 1850 and 1950. Or a mathematician to make a weighted average of any of the data.

By the time you get your PHD you know how to gather and use information from a wide variety of sources. shoot by the time you have a BA or BS you should know how to use the data of several different disciplines to form an argument.

When you put a doctorate in a narrow field of "Just A" you've pretty much ruined a degree. You can not produce meaningful data if you work solely within your field.

There is no such thing as a "Just a Geologist". Since several of the fields of geology involve the study of earth's climate. He is qualified. PHDs do not stick you in a narrow field. Your dissertation might suggest what you specialize teaching, it is fairly easy to do field research anywhere you choose even vaguely with in your degree.

If you going to go with that then "just a climatologist" has little room to speak on global warming. You know why ? because it takes a geologist to get the historical data on temperature pre 1850. Or a history prof to get temperature between 1850 and 1950. Or a mathematician to make a weighted average of any of the data.

By the time you get your PHD you know how to gather and use information from a wide variety of sources. shoot by the time you have a BA or BS you should know how to use the data of several different disciplines to form an argument.

When you put a doctorate in a narrow field of "Just A" you've pretty much ruined a degree. You can not produce meaningful data if you work solely within your field.
Good. Then you should have no trouble finding the information about and from Senator Schmitt that shows that he knows what he's talking about, as I have been asking you to.

What is "global warming denial"? Another stupid label by Jewish media to shield propaganda they produce from refutation, to further their pet causes. There is no such thing as "denialism" - it is disagreement. Get over it. Ecofundamentalist idiots.

http://media.collegepublisher.com/media/paper301/stills/3673o25f.jpg

Yeah, you guys do that.

What is "global warming denial"? Another stupid label by Jewish media to shield propaganda they produce from refutation, to further their pet causes. There is no such thing as "denialism" - it is disagreement. Get over it. Ecofundamentalist idiots.

Yeah, you guys do that.

Did you ask mommy if you can use the computer?

No, making requests of "mommy" is not something us "denialists" do. ;) We're not ones who need to be spoonfed and sheltered from competing views.

There is no such thing as a "Just a Geologist". Since several of the fields of geology involve the study of earth's climate. He is qualified. PHDs do not stick you in a narrow field. Your dissertation might suggest what you specialize teaching, it is fairly easy to do field research anywhere you choose even vaguely with in your degree.

If you going to go with that then "just a climatologist" has little room to speak on global warming. You know why ? because it takes a geologist to get the historical data on temperature pre 1850. Or a history prof to get temperature between 1850 and 1950. Or a mathematician to make a weighted average of any of the data.

By the time you get your PHD you know how to gather and use information from a wide variety of sources. shoot by the time you have a BA or BS you should know how to use the data of several different disciplines to form an argument.

When you put a doctorate in a narrow field of "Just A" you've pretty much ruined a degree. You can not produce meaningful data if you work solely within your field.


For the 20th time, if hes so experianced, you should be able to show me his research. You or NM.

Good. Then you should have no trouble finding the information about and from Senator Schmitt that shows that he knows what he's talking about, as I have been asking you to.

Starting with peer reviewed papers.

There is no such thing as a "Just a Geologist". Since several of the fields of geology involve the study of earth's climate. He is qualified. PHDs do not stick you in a narrow field. Your dissertation might suggest what you specialize teaching, it is fairly easy to do field research anywhere you choose even vaguely with in your degree.

If you going to go with that then "just a climatologist" has little room to speak on global warming. You know why ? because it takes a geologist to get the historical data on temperature pre 1850. Or a history prof to get temperature between 1850 and 1950. Or a mathematician to make a weighted average of any of the data.

By the time you get your PHD you know how to gather and use information from a wide variety of sources. shoot by the time you have a BA or BS you should know how to use the data of several different disciplines to form an argument.

When you put a doctorate in a narrow field of "Just A" you've pretty much ruined a degree. You can not produce meaningful data if you work solely within your field.

Science doesn't work that way. He doesn't get qualified by having a degree. And the idea that PhDs are so broad and disorganized is ludicrous.

He is qualified if he's done the research. Instead of whining that people are assuming that the guy who presented no data has none, present some data. If you can't, the assumption that none exists is perfectly valid. No one here can prove he's done no research on the subject. The positive assertion is yours. Present evidence or admit none exists.

And, yes, we know you'll retreat back to your strawman argument that people are attacking all geologists. Once again, I'll clarify as so many have that being a geologist of any degree level does not qualify you to speak on global warming. Doing research relevant to global warming does. No one, not one person, has claimed that geologists can't do research relevant to global warming.

Yep, another ignorant boob who's obviously on the payroll of the oil companies is publicly denying the Global Warming gospel.

Er, oops, it's actually a former astronaut and U.S. Senator
Of course, space exploration and a deep knowledge of the current state of the world's ecology are completely interlinked, and US Senators are straight as an arrow -_-

...http://media.collegepublisher.com/media/paper301/stills/3673o25f.jpg

Yeah, you guys do that.

If there were only deniers left then the planet would definitely be doomed. So, I think I'll stay alive in order to help save the planet.

Three. AGW is a sad joke. In 15 years the left will be back to predicting an incipient ice age - just as in the 1970's. Anything to justify taking further control of the economy.

Oh no, you don't agree with the sheeople here, you must be a troll.


http://metropolitician.blogs.com/scribblings_of_the_metrop/_files_troll_2.jpg

cuidado

The Global Warming hype is over. We are in need for work now.

The Global Warming hype is over. We are in need for work now.Give me a job, give me a job! [chanting continues]

The problem is that global warming opponents always take a small amount of data and then ignore everything else. Take a look at this link (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/02/george-f-will-takes-on-science-loses.html) and say if you still think there's no global warming.

The problem is that global warming opponents always take a small amount of data and then ignore everything else. Take a look at this link (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/02/george-f-will-takes-on-science-loses.html) and say if you still think there's no global warming.


The scientist Henrik Svensmark explained in "The Cloud Mystery" another reason for the global warming.

The scientist Henrik Svensmark explained in "The Cloud Mystery" another reason for the global warming.

Is that the one where the Earth farts under the blankets?

For the 20th time, if hes so experianced, you should be able to show me his research. You or NM.

i will look at it when it is published.
However my point still remains his education and experience gives him relevance to the issue.

Now if he just sold his credibility to oil the data will show it and no academic paper will touch it with a 10 foot pole.

The scientist Henrik Svensmark explained in "The Cloud Mystery" another reason for the global warming.

But a scientific paper (http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1748-9326/3/2/024001/) disproved (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7327393.stm) that theory, so henrik's hypothesis is back to the level of ideas like "more internet means more forum flames, and those forum flames cause global warming!"

...there's also the fact that Henrik still thinks that global warming exists...

The Global Warming hype is over. We are in need for work now.
*sigh*

"Screw the environment to help idiots who don't realise that the economy will recover in most of the world by 2011!"

Oh dear oh dear.

i will look at it when it is published.
However my point still remains his education and experience gives him relevance to the issue.

Now if he just sold his credibility to oil the data will show it and no academic paper will touch it with a 10 foot pole.

No, they don't. A - you've not demonstrated his experience relevant. B - his degree does not give him relevance no matter what. ONLY if he has done research in the area would he be relevant. You want people to treat him like he's relevant absent something that proves he isn't an expert. It doesn't work that way. The way it works is that he is considered an equal to every other person on the planet until some reason is given why his opinion should be elevated above yours. Having a PhD doesn't do that. Having one in geology also doesn't do it.

The only way his opinion is relevant is if he has a focus relevant to the topic. You've not shown that he does and no reasonable person is going to assume he does till it's been shown.

"I am a skeptic ... . Global warming has become a new religion." -- Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
"Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly ... . As a scientist I remain skeptical." -- Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called "among the most pre-eminent scientists of the last 100 years."
Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history ... . When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists." -- U.N. IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning Ph.D. environmental physical chemist.
"The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn't listen to others. It doesn't have open minds ... . I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists." -- Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the U.N.-supported International Year of the Planet.
"The models and forecasts of the U.N. IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity." -- Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.
"It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming." -- U.S. Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
"Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapor and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will." -- Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, New Zealand.
"After reading [U.N. IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet." -- Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an associate editor of Monthly Weather Review.
"For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" -- Geologist Dr. David Gee, the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer-reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.
"Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp ... . Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact." -- Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch U.N. IPCC committee.
"Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined." -- Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh, Pa.
"Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense ... . The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning." -- Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.
"CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another ... . Every scientist knows this, but it doesn't pay to say so ... . Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver's seat and developing nations walking barefoot." -- Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.
"The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds." -- Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.





EPIC Fail.

"I am a skeptic ... . Global warming has become a new religion." -- Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
"Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly ... . As a scientist I remain skeptical." -- Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called "among the most pre-eminent scientists of the last 100 years."
Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history ... . When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists." -- U.N. IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning Ph.D. environmental physical chemist.
"The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn't listen to others. It doesn't have open minds ... . I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists." -- Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the U.N.-supported International Year of the Planet.
"The models and forecasts of the U.N. IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity." -- Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.
"It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming." -- U.S. Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
"Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapor and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will." -- Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, New Zealand.
"After reading [U.N. IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet." -- Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an associate editor of Monthly Weather Review.
"For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" -- Geologist Dr. David Gee, the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer-reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.
"Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp ... . Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact." -- Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch U.N. IPCC committee.
"Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined." -- Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh, Pa.
"Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense ... . The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning." -- Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.
"CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another ... . Every scientist knows this, but it doesn't pay to say so ... . Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver's seat and developing nations walking barefoot." -- Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.
"The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds." -- Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

EPIC Fail.

Last time this particular pile of copy/paste spam was dumped unceremoniously on the forum, I googled the list, and found the whole stack on a wiki page, with something like 10 times as many statements that opposed it.

In turn, I copy/paste spammed that little stack in response.

This time I can't be bothered. You know it's there, I know it's there.

EPIC fail, indeed.

"I am a skeptic ... . Global warming has become a new religion." -- Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
"Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly ... . As a scientist I remain skeptical." -- Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called "among the most pre-eminent scientists of the last 100 years."
Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history ... . When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists." -- U.N. IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning Ph.D. environmental physical chemist.
"The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn't listen to others. It doesn't have open minds ... . I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists." -- Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the U.N.-supported International Year of the Planet.
"The models and forecasts of the U.N. IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity." -- Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.
"It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming." -- U.S. Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
"Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapor and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will." -- Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, New Zealand.
"After reading [U.N. IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet." -- Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an associate editor of Monthly Weather Review.
"For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" -- Geologist Dr. David Gee, the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer-reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.
"Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp ... . Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact." -- Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch U.N. IPCC committee.
"Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined." -- Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh, Pa.
"Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense ... . The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning." -- Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.
"CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another ... . Every scientist knows this, but it doesn't pay to say so ... . Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver's seat and developing nations walking barefoot." -- Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.
"The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds." -- Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.





EPIC Fail.


What is EPIC is your failure to cite your source. You copied that word for word. Plagiarism, but... but... that's so unexpected.

No I meant that we lack any sort of ability to damage a planet in the sense of it being a huge lump of rock. We can scuff the surface pretty badly though.

To be fair, if we were worried about something actually damaging the planet, we should be casting suspicious eyes at the Sun. And all those comets. And definitely the supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way, that one's definitely going to reduce Earth to literally nothing someday.

"I am a skeptic ... . Global warming has become a new religion." -- Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
"Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly ... . As a scientist I remain skeptical." -- Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called "among the most pre-eminent scientists of the last 100 years."
Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history ... . When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists." -- U.N. IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning Ph.D. environmental physical chemist.
"The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn't listen to others. It doesn't have open minds ... . I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists." -- Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the U.N.-supported International Year of the Planet.
"The models and forecasts of the U.N. IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity." -- Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.
"It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming." -- U.S. Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
"Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapor and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will." -- Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, New Zealand.
"After reading [U.N. IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet." -- Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an associate editor of Monthly Weather Review.
"For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" -- Geologist Dr. David Gee, the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer-reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.
"Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp ... . Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact." -- Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch U.N. IPCC committee.
"Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined." -- Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh, Pa.
"Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense ... . The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning." -- Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.
"CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another ... . Every scientist knows this, but it doesn't pay to say so ... . Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver's seat and developing nations walking barefoot." -- Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.
"The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds." -- Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.





EPIC Fail.

Yes. On your part.

That is correct, that is the interpretation that I choose to go with given the choice of words, in the context of the thread, and the post, and the posts for which it was a response. Is it really any less viable a choice than the posters actual meaning?

Yes. Yes it is. Any other questions?

What is "global warming denial"? Another stupid label by Jewish media to shield propaganda they produce from refutation, to further their pet causes. There is no such thing as "denialism" - it is disagreement. Get over it. Ecofundamentalist idiots.


Actually, if you might take a look at international media, and not just at Israeli media (which is what you meant by "jewish", I guess), you would discover, surprise surprise, that also many Aryan media maintain that there is a global climate change underway, and that humans at the very least partecipate in causing it.

As for Aryan media, I could give you myriads of examples from Ireland, Britain, Sweden, Norway, Germany, Austria etc.

If they're not Aryan, then I dare you to find someone more Aryan than these.

You know, one thing just occurred to me...

What would it be like if people who actually KNOW what is going on posted a "triumphant" thread about it whenever someone who knows global warming is happening and knows why makes a remark supporting the already-large bundles of scientific data about it?

Surely we'd have a whole first page of NOTHING BUT people confirming the reality that global warming exists?

Actually, if you might take a look at international media, and not just at Israeli media (which is what you meant by "jewish", I guess), you would discover, surprise surprise, that also many Aryan media maintain that there is a global climate change underway, and that humans at the very least partecipate in causing it.

As for Aryan media, I could give you myriads of examples from Ireland, Britain, Sweden, Norway, Germany, Austria etc.

If they're not Aryan, then I dare you to find someone more Aryan than these.

Please don't get Mr. Denial to godwin the thread.

No, they don't. A - you've not demonstrated his experience relevant. B - his degree does not give him relevance no matter what. ONLY if he has done research in the area would he be relevant. You want people to treat him like he's relevant absent something that proves he isn't an expert. It doesn't work that way. The way it works is that he is considered an equal to every other person on the planet until some reason is given why his opinion should be elevated above yours. Having a PhD doesn't do that. Having one in geology also doesn't do it.

The only way his opinion is relevant is if he has a focus relevant to the topic. You've not shown that he does and no reasonable person is going to assume he does till it's been shown.

And even if he was a climatologist, Id still only take him seriously if he had done some research.

And even if he was a climatologist, Id still only take him seriously if he had done some research.

This.^^

I'm an environmental scientist (mainly chemistry). I'm in a related field, I deal with environmental data, and get paid for handling science data.

To me - that qualifies me... to be able to give a somewhat-informed scientist's opinion when analysing the data. That's it.

Please don't get Mr. Denial to godwin the thread.

He had already done so. It was just being lampooned.

This.^^

I'm an environmental scientist (mainly chemistry). I'm in a related field, I deal with environmental data, and get paid for handling science data.

To me - that qualifies me... to be able to give a somewhat-informed scientist's opinion when analysing the data. That's it.

There is such a great reply to this but the last time I made that type of joke I get a red card for thinking it was obvious that the President is the CiC and that I was being sarcastic when I said otherwise. They can't say I don't learn from my "mistakes".

This.^^

I'm an environmental scientist (mainly chemistry). I'm in a related field, I deal with environmental data, and get paid for handling science data.

To me - that qualifies me... to be able to give a somewhat-informed scientist's opinion when analysing the data. That's it.

Well? I would look at your groups output. Look to see who is funding you so I can get an idea for possible stances.

For example the ops star witness works for a group that puts out papers correcting peoples misconceptions over coal and power, etc. Not much on data.

If your group was measuring climate effects, I would look at your data.

The climatologist argument is simply raised because the denialists don't seem to have any\ in their camp. When they find a scientist, it seems to be in label only.

Now if the senator had papers challenging Global Warming; I would listen/read his claims. He appears to not have any so I don't really listen to his claims or give him much authority.

He had already done so.

...I am too late.

*Cradles thread in his arms*

I... I was too late... I couldn't... I... just...

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BigNo)

Et Alors?

I don't think that, we humans, can destroy the entire planet but we could fuck up ourselves.

In the end, the planet would be a better planet without humans.

Great Global Warming Swindle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle)

/thread

A Senator and astronaut says there's no global warming? Good enough for me!

Now if you'll excuse me, I need some medical advice so I've got to track down a professional street performer to talk to.

A Senator and astronaut says there's no global warming? Good enough for me!

Now if you'll excuse me, I need some medical advice so I've got to track down a professional street performer to talk to.

I take lungs now, you come back for gills next week.

I take lungs now, you come back for gills next week.
I dunno...well, okay, but only if you'll throw in a set of Z-ray eyes, too.

Yep, another ignorant boob who's obviously on the payroll of the oil companies is publicly denying the Global Warming gospel.

Er, oops, it's actually a former astronaut and U.S. Senator:

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/national/general/view/2009_02_15_Former_astronaut_speaks_out_on_global_warming/srvc=home&position=recent

I especially liked how Sen. Schmitt resigned from The Planetary Society after that group morphed into another Chicken Little Kyoto-phile:



That last quote could not have been put better.

IMNSHO it is long past time for the "climate change" crowd to face the facts, acknowledge that their alleged "consensus" is no such thing, and get back to doing real science rather than advancing a political agenda.

Natural climate change "deniers" are invited to respond. ;)
Shame on Schmitt for not drinking the Kool-Aid like the rest.

Shame on Schmitt for not examining the overwhelming evidence with a mind that's not completely under the control of corporations like the rest.

I know it's bad form to discuss your spelling, but I just had to.

Call me when he has something to say about the geology of the moon and maybe I'll give a shit.

Shame on Schmitt for not drinking the Kool-Aid like the rest.

Boy that phrase just gets funnier and wittier every time a Republican oh-so-unpredictably applies it in lieu of making an actual argument.

It says something very sad about our country, that people think all highly-trained individuals are interchangeable. Education does not work that way, kiddies.

An airline pilot does not know how to repair a jet engine, even though she may be highly trained in how to operate one. A professional athlete does not know how to surgically repair an injured knee, even if he is very expert in the use of said knee for performing amazing physical feats. An astronaut does not know how to assess and evaluate the climate patterns of our planet, even if he has observed this planet from space.

I'm a pretty highly trained neuroscientist at this point, and I'm not qualified to offer an expert opinion on climate change. I'm qualified to read other people's studies and evaluate the science that is being done by experts in the field, and I'm certainly capable of forming my own opinion based on existing information, but my opinion isn't an expert one.



TLDR version: Appeals to authority are for noobs.

TLDR version: Appeals to authority are for noobs.
You should start offering these with all of your posts. Might cut back on misunderstandings.

You should start offering these with all of your posts. Might cut back on misunderstandings.
I offer TLDR version based on the moron population of a thread. If I believe that greater than 50% of the people reading and posting in a thread are total morons, I give them a nice short just-for-lazy-morons synopsis of my post so they won't feel left out.

The pollution the astronaut his rocket-engine caused is maybe at the same level I'll pollute in my entire life.

But I should be not allowed anymore to fly to Rhodos or to drive with my car?

I offer TLDR version based on the moron population of a thread. If I believe that greater than 50% of the people reading and posting in a thread are total morons, I give them a nice short just-for-lazy-morons synopsis of my post so they won't feel left out.

Yay! :D

You should include places for people to color. *fetches crayons*

I offer TLDR version based on the moron population of a thread. If I believe that greater than 50% of the people reading and posting in a thread are total morons, I give them a nice short just-for-lazy-morons synopsis of my post so they won't feel left out.

tl:dr

in lieu of

I like that expression. :)

Yay! :D

You should include places for people to color. *fetches crayons*
Nobody's fooled, LG. You've never seen a coloring space you didn't color outside of. :)

Nobody's fooled, LG. You've never seen a coloring space you didn't color outside of. :)
Lines are made to be crossed. :)

The pollution the astronaut his rocket-engine caused is maybe at the same level I'll pollute in my entire life.

Perhaps.

Now, how many astronauts are there? How many people who pollute the same as you are there? You will find one of those is numbered in the dozens. The other, in the hundreds of millions.

Nobody's fooled, LG. You've never seen a coloring space you didn't color outside of. :)

Lines are made to be crossed. :)

^^ This.

Shame on Schmitt for not having any peer reviewed field research to back up his claim.

Fixed.


Im still waiting on his research NM, greed and death, and co. Otherwise his opinion is worthless. About as worthless as your arguements in this thread, actually.

i will look at it when it is published.
However my point still remains his education and experience gives him relevance to the issue.

What do you mean, "when it's published"? Do you mean to tell me that this 73-year old person hasn't got any published research to back up his claim yet? If so, why the hullaballoo?

Ah, but that was not the implication the original remark I was responding to. It was quite clearly suggesting that it would be the representatives of the science making outlandish predictions. It was clearly equating the people who talked about cooling then being equivalent to those talking about climate change now.

I see. So you know what I mean better than I do.
Since the majority of people who talked about global cooling then or climate change now were/are not scientists, your claim that I clearly suggested scientists would make outlandish predictions is contradictory.

I think you will be surprised to learn that quite a few NSGers are scientists and/or statisticians, and some even work in climate related fields, and they understand the data quite well. Hang around long enough, and you will get to know them.

1) "On the internet, no one knows you're a dog." I have no faith whatever that commenters are who they claim to be.
2) If the data is corrupt, the analysis is useless. I do not trust the sources. Calling someone a scientist does not make him any more trustworthy. If his hypothesis is valid, time will prove him right. If his hypothesis is not yet proven, appeals to his analysis are appeals to authority.

And now you devolve into partisan political bullshit. This is the point where I refer you back to my very first post in this thread, on page 1 (you should have no difficulty finding it).

Note particularly, item (3), the one about how there are better and more immediate reasons to apply the kinds of regulations on industry and consumption espoused by environmentalists, which have nothing at all to do with climate change, but everything to do with the economy, foreign policy, and public health.

You of course are far too much the disinterested demigod ever to descend to "partisan political bullshit". :hail:

I said nothing about your item 3 because it is neither directly relevant to the thread topic, nor necessarily untrue. There are indeed valid environmental reasons to regulate industry & consumption. I have never seen anyone, Left nor Right, advocate for the right to dump radioactive waste on Main Street, for example. That has nothing to do with, say, whether the Kyoto Protocol was a good idea, nor does it give all environmental concerns equal weight.

Not the side of the debate calling for a massive restructuring of society, resulting in non-hierarchical forms of governance, designed as stable, ecologically-sound libertarian municipalities?

There's more to the debate than Al Gore vs. the Heartland Institute, y'know.

My name isn't Gore, nor am I a member of the Heartland Institute. I do not believe non-hierarchical forms of governance are nor can be stable - but that's a different topic.

Those who push forward the more religious tones of some elements of Gaia theory are certainly not the majority.

I would suggest you educate yourself in the various environmental ethical theories; examine their breadth.

Are you quite certain? Most of the arguments put forth in favor of AGW are not overtly religious, true. But examine your own 2nd sentence. See that word "ethical"? What is religion, if not organized ethics? David Hume's is/ought seems relevant here.

I ask again - if the motivation is not religious, why is there so much free-floating emotion on the topic? Nobody gets riled up about the germ theory of disease. I've never seen a single flame war over General Relativity. Even if AGW proponents turn out to be 100% correct & Al Gore is indeed a prophet, calling skeptics idiots or Holocaust deniers is a poor method of persuasion - I'm not singling you out here, but you cannot pretend you have never seen such tantrums. This debate is only superficially about science. The primary motive for most - not all, but most - people in the environmental movement is a love of nature & the Earth. I do not share this passion, nor am I impressed with the general quality of their arguments.

The pollution the astronaut his rocket-engine caused is maybe at the same level I'll pollute in my entire life.

But I should be not allowed anymore to fly to Rhodos or to drive with my car?

I almost thought that said "fly more RhynoDs" and I wasn't sure if I should be offended or not.

Also, consider: you drive your car to the store down the street or so to get milk. Astronauts go into space to set equipment and do experiments that will expand the mind of the human race.

Also also, you have the option of using an electric car or walking. There's no such thing as an electric rocket. Or walking to space.

Are you quite certain? Most of the arguments put forth in favor of AGW are not overtly religious, true. But examine your own 2nd sentence. See that word "ethical"? What is religion, if not organized ethics? David Hume's is/ought seems relevant here.

Religion is a lot more than "he said the word 'ethical.'" Your attempt here is ridiculous and it just gets more so.

I ask again - if the motivation is not religious, why is there so much free-floating emotion on the topic?

...religion is a lot more than "free-floating emotion." There is emotion in a great many things that have nothing to do with religion, and your attempt to conflate the mere presence of emotion (golly, on a politics forum!) with having a religious viewpoint is nothing less than absurd.

Even if AGW proponents turn out to be 100% correct & Al Gore is indeed a prophet

Strawman burning. Impressive.

, calling skeptics idiots or Holocaust deniers is a poor method of persuasion

Insisting that your opponents on a single issue have a "religion" isn't terribly compelling either.

Particularly when you don't even have a rational argument for your claim.

What is religion, if not organized ethics?

a set of cultural stories, practices, and beliefs regarding the divine?

a set of cultural stories, practices, and beliefs regarding the divine?

Psh. Well, if thats the definition you want to use, his whole point is bullshit.

Oh, whoops.

What is religion, if not organized ethics?

Irrelevent.

Even if religion is ethics, it doesn't mean ethics is religion.

Religion =/= ethics.

religion, if not organized ethics? David Hume's is/ought seems relevant here.

I ask again - if the motivation is not religious, why is there so much free-floating emotion on the topic? Nobody gets riled up about the germ theory of disease. I've never seen a single flame war over General Relativity. Even if AGW proponents turn out to be 100% correct & Al Gore is indeed a prophet, calling skeptics idiots or Holocaust deniers is a poor method of persuasion - I'm not singling you out here, but you cannot pretend you have never seen such tantrums. This debate is only superficially about science. The primary motive for most - not all, but most - people in the environmental movement is a love of nature & the Earth. I do not share this passion, nor am I impressed with the general quality of their arguments.

Is there serious opposition to Germ Theory. Seeing as Germ theory underpins the development of modern medicine, I'm pretty sure it would the source of fairly heated debate if there was substantial disagreement over it.

It's just political incorrect not to believe in the global warming hype.

Well I don't believe it.

It's just political incorrect not to believe in the global warming hype.

Well I don't believe it.

Nothing to do with political correctness.

In science, dissent is okay. The dissent about something like Dark Matter, for example, is more widespread than the dissent over climate change, because the evidence is much more pronounced for climate change. It's not 'politically incorrect' to be skeptical of climate change - it just doesn't often happen when people who can take a purely scientific approach examine what data is available.

As an illustration - imagine a room full of people looking at a clock. Almost everyone in the room agrees it's a 3:16. There are a few people that can't read analogue clocks, and they're looking at a digital read-out that translates the analogue clock. They also seem to think it's 3:16.

There is one GOOD reason to not accept that time - you haven't seen the 'data'.

If you have seen the data, you should reach the same conclusion on the time - unless you can show that the methodology is wrong ("hey - that clock has been saying 3:16 for a week, now")... or you can provide a conflicting clock. An the 'denial' movement just consistently fails to do that.

It's not a matter of political correctness.

Is there serious opposition to Germ Theory. Seeing as Germ theory underpins the development of modern medicine, I'm pretty sure it would the source of fairly heated debate if there was substantial disagreement over it.

There was. When it was first being developed and the evidence for it was first being gathered.

Nowadays it is a settled scientific question.

This applies in an even greater degree to manmade global climate change, as there are powerful financial interests directly opposing this. As with germ theory, it is basically a settled scientific question by this point.

Nothing to do with political correctness.

In science, dissent is okay. The dissent about something like Dark Matter, for example, is more widespread than the dissent over climate change, because the evidence is much more pronounced for climate change. It's not 'politically incorrect' to be skeptical of climate change - it just doesn't often happen when people who can take a purely scientific approach examine what data is available.

As an illustration - imagine a room full of people looking at a clock. Almost everyone in the room agrees it's a 3:16. There are a few people that can't read analogue clocks, and they're looking at a digital read-out that translates the analogue clock. They also seem to think it's 3:16.

There is one GOOD reason to not accept that time - you haven't seen the 'data'.

If you have seen the data, you should reach the same conclusion on the time - unless you can show that the methodology is wrong ("hey - that clock has been saying 3:16 for a week, now")... or you can provide a conflicting clock. An the 'denial' movement just consistently fails to do that.

It's not a matter of political correctness.

The sad thing is that many of the global warming deniers are in the "My watch says 3:17 not 3:16 so you're totally off!" group...

:mad:Global warming may be a bigger hoax than lord Obama's so call Stimulus Bill. Both are costing us Trillions of dollars we don't have.

you are extreemly dumb. both are really important matters, you and a stimulus is a verry good idea. conservenive! Global warming is a proven fact, not some idea made when you had too much beer late at night. Global warming is a fact, with singhns of it becoming more and more obvious. So all you out there who think global warming is a hocus just wait untill we live on a dump of trash, that smell bad, with a exremely thick atmosphere, and temperatures in the upper hundreds. Youll be sorry then

There was. When it was first being developed and the evidence for it was first being gathered.

Nowadays it is a settled scientific question.

This applies in an even greater degree to manmade global climate change, as there are powerful financial interests directly opposing this. As with germ theory, it is basically a settled scientific question by this point.

Yeah, I knew there was opposition when it was first proposed but I imagined that, by now, there was little to no opposition. Nice to know I wasn't wrong :tongue:.

The sad thing is that many of the global warming deniers are in the "My watch says 3:17 not 3:16 so you're totally off!" group...

I only WISH that were so!

The sad thing is that most of the global warming denial movement are in the "I can't tell the time... so you must be wrong" group.

I only WISH that were so!

The sad thing is that most of the global warming denial movement are in the "I can't tell the time... so you must be wrong" group.

There's a lot of the "I can't tell the time, and your watch is part of a global liberal conspiracy to increase taxes, so you're wrong" folks about too.

There's a lot of the "I can't tell the time, and your watch is part of a global liberal conspiracy to increase taxes, so you're wrong" folks about too.

And the "I can tell the time, actually, but my friend says you're wrong... so you're wrong" crowd.

I see. So you know what I mean better than I do.
Apparently.

Since the majority of people who talked about global cooling then or climate change now were/are not scientists, your claim that I clearly suggested scientists would make outlandish predictions is contradictory.
Are you seriously going to claim that the majority of people talking about this are not scientists? Are you sure you want to do that?

And if you are going to do that, does that mean that you are admitting that Senator Schmitt has no expertise in this scientific area, either?

1) "On the internet, no one knows you're a dog." I have no faith whatever that commenters are who they claim to be.
The funny thing is that you could examine their sources to see if they make sense.

2) If the data is corrupt, the analysis is useless. I do not trust the sources. Calling someone a scientist does not make him any more trustworthy. If his hypothesis is valid, time will prove him right. If his hypothesis is not yet proven, appeals to his analysis are appeals to authority.
Ah, I see, you'll head that off and save yourself the trouble by rejecting the sources merely because you can read them on the internet. That way you don't have to read them or judge facts at all.

That's a very cute but not very original trick for absolving yourself of all responsibility for your own arguments while simultaneously ignoring everyone else's. Why bother logging on at all then?

Also, is this yet another tacit admission that there is no reason whatsoever why anyone should take this Schmitt character's word for anything?

You of course are far too much the disinterested demigod ever to descend to "partisan political bullshit". :hail:
Excuse me, peasant, but there is nothing "demi" about my godhood. I accept sacrifices in cash or money order.

I said nothing about your item 3 because it is neither directly relevant to the thread topic, nor necessarily untrue. There are indeed valid environmental reasons to regulate industry & consumption. I have never seen anyone, Left nor Right, advocate for the right to dump radioactive waste on Main Street, for example.
I have. Or rather, I have not seen them claim the right to do it, but I have seen it done. Last I heard (in a documentary many years ago) there were over 90 Super Fund toxic waste dump sites, a large number of them completely illegal, in the city of New York alone, including a warehouse full of leaking barrels of radioactive industrial waste across the street from an elementary school in the Bronx. EDIT: And considering that I lived in NYC at the time, I can personally attest to the existence of many of those dump sites.

That has nothing to do with, say, whether the Kyoto Protocol was a good idea, nor does it give all environmental concerns equal weight.
No indeed, some of them are bullshit -- like the concern that climate change is only a conspiracy for liberals to control the economy, as at least one poster has suggested in this thread already.

*snip*

No indeed, some of them are bullshit -- like the concern that climate change is only a conspiracy for liberals to control the economy, as at least one poster has suggested in this thread already.

Why is this a bullshit concern? Do you have the ability to read the mind of every liberal politician to determine if there are ulterior motives for their positions? If you do have this ability, I'd like to hire you for a project!

Why is this a bullshit concern? Do you have the ability to read the mind of every liberal politician to determine if there are ulterior motives for their positions? If you do have this ability, I'd like to hire you for a project!
No, I'm just referring to something that is in the thread. You should read it some time. It's hilarious.

Why is this a bullshit concern? Do you have the ability to read the mind of every liberal politician to determine if there are ulterior motives for their positions? If you do have this ability, I'd like to hire you for a project!

No, so it's entirely possible that some liberal politicians DO have ulterior motives for pushing their "climate change" agenda. Luckily, we don't have to worry about the oil companies funding the other side's campaign. They have only the public's best interests at heart.

No, so it's entirely possible that some liberal politicians DO have ulterior motives for pushing their "climate change" agenda. Luckily, we don't have to worry about the oil companies funding the other side's campaign. They have only the public's best interests at heart.

Well, the oil companies clearly have their own interests in mind, and perhaps tangentially the interests of their shareholders, but that doesn't mean we should give governments the right to impose additional taxes on private citizens based on subjective interpretations.

I mean, if we follow carbon taxes to their logical conclusions, we should raise the price of food to compensate for the environmental impact of farming to the point where the poor starve. But that should obviously be recognized as unethical. So where do we draw the line - I'm fine with banning SUVs or a number of other invasive actions in the name of the economy or even the environment, but once we give government(s) that power they will only take more and more.

Well, the oil companies clearly have their own interests in mind, and perhaps tangentially the interests of their shareholders, but that doesn't mean we should give governments the right to impose additional taxes on private citizens based on subjective interpretations.


I dont know who told you that wishing really really hard made peer reviewed scientific data "an interpertation", but they lied to do.

Shame on Schmitt for not drinking the Kool-Aid like the rest.

:confused:

Are you having a senior moment?

\
What is religion, if not organized ethics?


:confused:

Can somebody explain the ethics of child rape to me?

:confused:

Can somebody explain the ethics of child rape to me?

Yes! And after that, can someone explain to me what this has to do with global warming?

Yes! And after that, can someone explain to me what this has to do with global warming?

Nobody move! IT'S A THREAD JACK!

I think it was something about the global warming stance being like a religion......

Yes! And after that, can someone explain to me what this has to do with global warming?
Sarpati claimed that "global warming/climate change" is some kind of religion and when challenged, he tried to claim that it's a religion because someone talking about it used the word ethics and he tried to say that a religion = a system of ethics as if that is all religion is. So that started the question of what other things are religions just because they involve ethics, and how much of different religious attitudes are ethical.

*shrug*

Nobody move! IT'S A THREAD JACK!

I think it was something about the global warming stance being like a religion......

And this has to do with child rape... how?

Ok, so it has to do with religion. What religion institutionalizes child rape? That's my question, I guess you could say.

Well if Religion is system of ethics, where does child rape fall under that system?

I don't know of any religion that endorses or allows child rape. So I would think under the "unethical" column.

Caught you!

I don't know of any religion that endorses or allows child rape. So I would think under the "unethical" column.

Caught you!

No I only deleted as I was going to quote your responce.

The Catholics accepted it as they kept moving Priests around and putting them next to more children.

But let's not detract from global warming. ;)

I don't know of any religion that endorses or allows child rape. So I would think under the "unethical" column.

Caught you!
EDIT: Deleted what I said because BF's thing at least is true. :)

I don't know of any religion that endorses or allows child rape. So I would think under the "unethical" column.

Caught you!

FALSE!

There are tribes in Africa in which a boy comes to adulthood by an adult male sodomizing him. Although that may just be a part of their culture and not a part of their religion specifically.

FALSE!

There are tribes in Africa in which a boy comes to adulthood by an adult male sodomizing him. Although that may just be a part of their culture and not a part of their religion specifically.

And don't forget the tribes where there is no greater shame imaginable than your mother refusing to take your virginty. And I am certain that some western religions in the past believed in the "as soon as she bleeds, she should make babies for (insert deity here)" creed.

FALSE!

There are tribes in Africa in which a boy comes to adulthood by an adult male sodomizing him. Although that may just be a part of their culture and not a part of their religion specifically.

Really? Which ones?

Are you seriously going to claim that the majority of people talking about this are not scientists? Are you sure you want to do that?

Quite sure, yes.

And if you are going to do that, does that mean that you are admitting that Senator Schmitt has no expertise in this scientific area, either?

It does. I've made no effort to defend Schmitt.

The funny thing is that you could examine their sources to see if they make sense.


Ah, I see, you'll head that off and save yourself the trouble by rejecting the sources merely because you can read them on the internet. That way you don't have to read them or judge facts at all.

That's a very cute but not very original trick for absolving yourself of all responsibility for your own arguments while simultaneously ignoring everyone else's. Why bother logging on at all then?

Also, is this yet another tacit admission that there is no reason whatsoever why anyone should take this Schmitt character's word for anything?

Try to stick to what I write, rather than what you imagine I think. No wonder you believe you know what I mean better than I do.

Excuse me, peasant, but there is nothing "demi" about my godhood. I accept sacrifices in cash or money order.

:rolleyes:

I have. Or rather, I have not seen them claim the right to do it, but I have seen it done. Last I heard (in a documentary many years ago) there were over 90 Super Fund toxic waste dump sites, a large number of them completely illegal, in the city of New York alone, including a warehouse full of leaking barrels of radioactive industrial waste across the street from an elementary school in the Bronx. EDIT: And considering that I lived in NYC at the time, I can personally attest to the existence of many of those dump sites.

There is a difference between doing it & arguing in favor of it. No one, Left nor Right, denies that illegal dumping of toxic crap goes on. No one, Left nor Right, argues that it's a good idea.

No indeed, some of them are bullshit -- like the concern that climate change is only a conspiracy for liberals to control the economy, as at least one poster has suggested in this thread already.

Not sure who said that. I said it is an excuse for further control of the economy by bureaucrats, and that the Left favors this. No one has yet taken issue with that point.

Religion is a lot more than "he said the word 'ethical.'" Your attempt here is ridiculous and it just gets more so.

Please do not put quotes around things I never wrote. It is dishonest.

...religion is a lot more than "free-floating emotion." There is emotion in a great many things that have nothing to do with religion, and your attempt to conflate the mere presence of emotion (golly, on a politics forum!) with having a religious viewpoint is nothing less than absurd.

I never said that all emotional outbursts are religious. I'm saying that the emotional attachment to a ball of dirt is a religious impulse. I'm saying that people get emotional about global warming because of that attachment.

Do you deny there are large numbers of people who refer to Gaia with no sense of irony? Have you not noticed the previous comments on this thread which talk about a love of the Earth? You're substituting your own words for mine, and arguing with false quotes. Sad.

Strawman burning. Impressive.

Ironic. What strawman am I burning? Do you know what the term means?

Insisting that your opponents on a single issue have a "religion" isn't terribly compelling either.

Particularly when you don't even have a rational argument for your claim.

Oh, I don't insist that all AGW proponents have a religious motive. I specifically said that bureaucrats favor this view because it increases their power.

How would you know whether I have a rational argument? You haven't asked for one.

Er, oops, it's actually a former astronaut and U.S. Senator

So is it the astronaut training or the senator training that involves climatology?

When science gets infected by non-science, it's becomes harder to tell who to trust; in this case, even whether or not there's a consensus is something that has to be told by someone else. Ideally it's better to talk to the scientists themselves; I remember one day I was late finishing up a chemistry lab, and asked the instructor (who was a chemical oceanographer) if it was true that there was doubt within the scientific community as to whether or not climate change was manmade, and she said "not anymore." (She went on to mention something about how the climate models based on anthropogenic climate change turned out to be accurate, and that their inaccuracy was that the changes that happened so far happened faster than they predicted)

It's unfortunate that a subject about physics and chemistry would get so wrapped up in non-science's nonsensical labels like "left-wing" and "right-wing"; I remember some global warming debate on another site where someone was saying that people believe in global warming because Al Gore made a film that appealed to people's emotions. Well, I never even WATCHED that movie, aside from a few minutes of it.

"The suggestion that humans are responsible for at least a significant component of climate change comes from several lines of evidence. Theoretical considerations suggest that discharging carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere will cause atmospheric warming, as can be directly observed above all cities in the developed world where energy use involves burning fossil fuels. Measurements of carbon dioxide and methane preseved in ice cores from Antarctica and Kallaallit Nunaat (Greenland) indicate that the concentrations have been relatively stable over the past 10000 years. However, since 1800, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the ice and the atmosphere has increased by about 30% and the concentration of methane has doubled.

Proxy data, historical records, and numerical temperature and precipitation observations allow comparison between what has happened under the purely natural circumstances that undoubtedly existed prior to 1800 AD, and what has happened since then. The most striking difference is not in the type of climate changes, or the areas of occurrence, or the consequences to organisms: it is the speed at which the changes are occuring. Changes that required hundreds , thousands, or tens of thousands of years in the natural and geological records are now seen within the span of decades. The rates of climate change are increasing, along with increased human production of carbon dioxide and methane. The acceleration of the rate of change began in the early 1800s, just as human consumption of fossil fuels increased. Ongoing climate changes directly above cities are proportional to the amount of energy consumed by each, with differences evident due to city size, lifestyle, and economic wealth. Taken all together, the acceleration of climate change cannot be explained solely by natural causes: human activity is the only factor that has changed substantially in Earth's climate system since 1800."

- Geography 1050: Introduction to the Principles & Practice of Geography. Memorial University of Newfoundland Department of Geography. 2008-2009 version.

(My geography textbook from last semester)

Please do not put quotes around things I never wrote. It is dishonest.


I was mocking you. Apparently the inherent stupidity of what you actually said wasn't as blatantly obvious to you as it was to me (and anyone else reading it) so I thought I'd paraphrase for the purpose of illustration.

"Dishonest?" Please.


I never said that all emotional outbursts are religious. I'm saying that the emotional attachment to a ball of dirt is a religious impulse. I'm saying that people get emotional about global warming because of that attachment.

I see. The emotional responses found in this thread are evidence of how religious global warming is, because the global warming religious impulse causes emotional responses.

I guess it didn't occur to you that there are plenty of reasons people get or appear to be emotional, and on a politics forum, on any major debate subject, this will happen routinely. It isn't example or evidence of "religious impulses" or that any position is a "religious" one. You've got an absolutely ludicrous argument here.

Do you deny there are large numbers of people who refer to Gaia with no sense of irony?

Name 3 in this thread.

Have you not noticed the previous comments on this thread which talk about a love of the Earth?

I've heard of people having love for their children. PROCREATION IS A RELIGION!

You're substituting your own words for mine, and arguing with false quotes. Sad.

You've got quite a lovely imagination.

Ironic. What strawman am I burning? Do you know what the term means?


You stated,

"Even if AGW proponents turn out to be 100% correct & Al Gore is indeed a prophet "

Al Gore being a "prophet" is not what AGW proponents are arguing, nor what they could be "correct" about. You have deliberately construed this mythological argument only to burn it down and pat yourself on the back for being so clever. The laughable part being that you then accuse me of being dishonest... all the while ignoring the actual arguments.

Oh, I don't insist that all AGW proponents have a religious motive. I specifically said that bureaucrats favor this view because it increases their power.

This is called a conspiracy theory.

How would you know whether I have a rational argument? You haven't asked for one.

I can read. That's how I know.

So is it the astronaut training or the senator training that involves climatology?

It's Republican Expertise. Bill Frist is a thoracic surgeon, but also a Republican which makes him qualified in the field of neurological damage and persistent vegetative state.

I was mocking you. Apparently the inherent stupidity of what you actually said wasn't as blatantly obvious to you as it was to me (and anyone else reading it) so I thought I'd paraphrase for the purpose of illustration.

"Dishonest?" Please.

No, you were mocking the caricature in your head, not me.

You do not speak for all readers. Please rein in your ego.

A paraphrase does not require quotes. Using them implies I actually said what you wrote. Dishonest, and poor debate.

I see. The emotional responses found in this thread are evidence of how religious global warming is, because the global warming religious impulse causes emotional responses.

Evidence? No. Example? Perhaps.

I guess it didn't occur to you that there are plenty of reasons people get or appear to be emotional, and on a politics forum, on any major debate subject, this will happen routinely. It isn't example or evidence of "religious impulses" or that any position is a "religious" one. You've got an absolutely ludicrous argument here.

You're still trying to warp what I said into a more convenient strawman. I never suggested, and have denied more than once, that the religious impulse was the only source of support for AGW theory. You are not reading carefully.

Name 3 in this thread.

Why this thread in particular? I think you're trying to dodge my question.

I've heard of people having love for their children. PROCREATION IS A RELIGION!

The Earth is our child? You have the trope backwards.

You've got quite a lovely imagination.

Thank you. Not quite so active as yours, but I'm getting old.

You stated,

"Even if AGW proponents turn out to be 100% correct & Al Gore is indeed a prophet "

Al Gore being a "prophet" is not what AGW proponents are arguing, nor what they could be "correct" about. You have deliberately construed this mythological argument only to burn it down and pat yourself on the back for being so clever. The laughable part being that you then accuse me of being dishonest... all the while ignoring the actual arguments.

Sigh. I'll grant that quote was poorly worded. I was not implying AGW proponents consider Al Gore a prophet, nor that that is what they would be 100% correct about. The full sentence was "Even if AGW proponents turn out to be 100% correct & Al Gore is indeed a prophet, calling skeptics idiots or Holocaust deniers is a poor method of persuasion - I'm not singling you out here, but you cannot pretend you have never seen such tantrums". You chopped out the last 2/3 of the sentence, invented some nonsense about my constructing a false argument in order to demolish it, accused me of patting myself on the back, then called me an idiot. Dishonest, and a perfect example of what I was actually saying: even if AGW is 100% correct, even if Al Gore is absolutely right about it, calling skeptics idiots is no way to change their minds. But you're not looking to persuade, are you?

This is called a conspiracy theory.

No conspiracy is necessary. A bureaucrat need not consult with anyone to understand that AGW gives him an opportunity to increase his authority.

Quite sure, yes.
Well, then you must know. Which suggests that you must have some source of information about the demographics or career breakdowns of the people who speak to the issue of climate change. I look forward to your providing links or references to that information source.

Otherwise, I'm going to call bullshit, because every study I have seen quoted that argues in favor of climate change has been written by scientists. Every piece of testimony supporting arguments about climate change made before Congress has been made by scientists. The majority of experits consulted by the media who argue that climate change is real and is a problem that must be dealt with have been scientists.

And most of the arguments by non-scientists made in places like this have been quoting or referring to those scientists.

So, obviously, I am very eager to see what you know that shows this to be a mere illusion.


It does. I've made no effort to defend Schmitt.
That is a wise choice on your part, but then what is the point of all your arguing? Merely that climate change is fake anyway?

Try to stick to what I write, rather than what you imagine I think. No wonder you believe you know what I mean better than I do.
I merely looked at the words in your posts and responded to them.

:rolleyes:
Blasphemer.

There is a difference between doing it & arguing in favor of it. No one, Left nor Right, denies that illegal dumping of toxic crap goes on. No one, Left nor Right, argues that it's a good idea.
Oh, I see, so you're going to argue that people are dumping toxic waste in direct contradiction of their own beliefs about that issue? You know for a fact that no dumper of toxic waste has ever or would ever try to defend himself by claiming that he did nothing wrong? How about all those toxic sites that are not actually illegal, even though they are dangerous due to negligence? Do you think nobody debated whether to put toxic dump or storage sites in those locations, and nobody argued that it would be a good idea?

Well, if you know that -- as you must if you're making such a strong positive assertion about it -- that must be another piece of information that you have and can present to us here. I await it eagerly.

Not sure who said that. I said it is an excuse for further control of the economy by bureaucrats, and that the Left favors this. No one has yet taken issue with that point.
I have. So has at least one other poster very recently. You missed that, apparently, as you missed several other points, too. You really should try reading the threads you post in.

But I'll take care of the lack for you right now. I have taken and do take issue with your assertion that climate change is just an excuse for bureaucrats to take further control of the economy. I call pure, undiluted bullshit on that claim. There, now you have something to work with.

Really? Which ones?

That one with the chief and the grass skirts and the drums and the dancing.

So is it the astronaut training or the senator training that involves climatology?

Nothing is more important than a firm grasp of the principles under which the climate of good old Terra operates when flying to a moon with no atmosphere.

A paraphrase does not require quotes. Using them implies I actually said what you wrote.

welcome to the wonderful world of 'scare quotes'

are there cookies? if not then im too scared to enter.

COOKIES IN THEM THAR HILLS!

Yes! And after that, can someone explain to me what this has to do with global warming?

Aha! By asking this one question, you have just qualified yourself as a baby-eating, freedom-hatin', godless COMMIE!

:rolleyes:

Well, then you must know. Which suggests that you must have some source of information about the demographics or career breakdowns of the people who speak to the issue of climate change. I look forward to your providing links or references to that information source.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=anthropogenic+global+warming&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=

566,000 results. Enjoy.

Otherwise, I'm going to call bullshit, because every study I have seen quoted that argues in favor of climate change has been written by scientists. Every piece of testimony supporting arguments about climate change made before Congress has been made by scientists. The majority of experits consulted by the media who argue that climate change is real and is a problem that must be dealt with have been scientists.

Ah, moving the goalposts. Your question was "Are you seriously going to claim that the majority of people talking about this are not scientists?" You said nothing about studies, testimony, nor media consultation.

And most of the arguments by non-scientists made in places like this have been quoting or referring to those scientists.

I've seen some quoting of scientists here. Most? No. Mostly I see polemics.

That is a wise choice on your part, but then what is the point of all your arguing? Merely that climate change is fake anyway?

Climate change is real. It is sometimes known as "weather". Global warming is possible, perhaps even likely, but not yet proven. Anthropogenic global warming is a theory, nothing more.

Oh, I see, so you're going to argue that people are dumping toxic waste in direct contradiction of their own beliefs about that issue? You know for a fact that no dumper of toxic waste has ever or would ever try to defend himself by claiming that he did nothing wrong? How about all those toxic sites that are not actually illegal, even though they are dangerous due to negligence? Do you think nobody debated whether to put toxic dump or storage sites in those locations, and nobody argued that it would be a good idea?

People do things in contradiction to their beliefs all the time. If you can find a company or individual who has ever dumped toxic waste on Main Street and argued it was a good idea, I'd like to see that.

You are shifting the argument again. The toxic waste has to go somewhere. I would expect that whatever legal site was chosen for it was proposed as a good spot by someone. This has nothing to do with what I actually wrote.

But I'll take care of the lack for you right now. I have taken and do take issue with your assertion that climate change is just an excuse for bureaucrats to take further control of the economy. I call pure, undiluted bullshit on that claim. There, now you have something to work with.

Nope, not "climate change". AGW. They are not the same thing. Not just an excuse for bureaucratic increase. Also a religious impulse to protect our sacred mother Earth. I've clarified both these points more than once, but you seemingly cannot resist the urge to demand I defend an argument I have not made.

A few questions for you.

1. Do you deny that any laws passed to combat global warming will require a larger enforcement bureaucracy, new authority for the current bureaucracy, or both?
2. Do you deny that the EPA (the obvious candidate for such authority) would welcome the greater legal authority & larger budget which would come from such laws?
3. Do you deny the Left would welcome such laws?

Unless you can answer "yes, I do deny it" to at least one of those questions, I'm not sure why you even take issue with my point. Well, actually I do have some idea why: you are a leftist, yes? Obviously a self-described skeptical reactionary such as myself must be fought with any & all weapons at hand. Since the Presidency and Congress are currently in Democratic hands, any suggestion that government employees are anything but selfless, righteous paladins must be squashed immediately. Of course, that is just a guess.

I am not a Republican, btw. They are far too progressive for my taste. Take the standard Democratic positions of 1959, slap an elephant logo on them, and behold! You have a Republican. Not directly relevant here, but I think it best to pre-empt any attempt to associate me with them. They have my sympathy - to a point - but not my support. Buncha tax-wasting Christophilic boobs.

That one with the chief and the grass skirts and the drums and the dancing.

Ahhh so you made a joke. Sorry my detectors were off.

this thread is going no where it is really has become something of an argument over global warming. my concern is the validity of the scientist in question. and if he has done the relevant research and if so when is he publishing.

this thread is going no where it is really has become something of an argument over global warming. my concern is the validity of the scientist in question. and if he has done the relevant research and if so when is he publishing.

There's no indication in this thread or in any links that he's done any relevant research this millennium, nor that he's planning to publish anything.

There's no indication in this thread or in any links that he's done any relevant research this millennium, nor that he's planning to publish anything.

searching his degree he has the education and what not.

I guess i assume too much from doctors before they open their mouths.

if i wasn't busy with class stuff id go through the library and see what academic articles he has published.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=anthropogenic+global+warming&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=

566,000 results. Enjoy.


Did you even read some of those links? Not much data in their arguments and some recycle refuted claimed.


Ah, moving the goalposts. Your question was "Are you seriously going to claim that the majority of people talking about this are not scientists?" You said nothing about studies, testimony, nor media consultation.


Nice attempt to redefine what she said.

I've seen some quoting of scientists here. Most? No. Mostly I see polemics.

Eh?

joe bob the mathematician says global warming is bull
Senator astronaut says global warming is bull.
Those guys aren't even researching climatology. What's their data to back up their claims?
You are just practicing polemics!

Climate change is real. It is sometimes known as "weather". Global warming is possible, perhaps even likely, but not yet proven. Anthropogenic global warming is a theory, nothing more.

Ahh the "just a theory" dispute. I guess you haven't seen that don't work for the creationists.....

People do things in contradiction to their beliefs all the time. If you can find a company or individual who has ever dumped toxic waste on Main Street and argued it was a good idea, I'd like to see that.

Well of course not We have laws and the means to fight that. Head down to Mexico. There is one village where a chemical company ran is excess pipe and chemicals were rolling down the main street. But then again that story was by da ebil librawl media.

Nope, not "climate change". AGW. They are not the same thing. Not just an excuse for bureaucratic increase.

:rolleyes:

I vote for intelligent heating up theory!

Also a religious impulse to protect our sacred mother Earth. I've clarified both these points more than once, but you seemingly cannot resist the urge to demand I defend an argument I have not made.

You are right. We should eliminate that impulse and do in all environmental and safety laws. We shouldn't protect the earth so why should we protect our homes, etc! Stupid laws get in the way of profit!!!!

A few questions for you.

1. Do you deny that any laws passed to combat global warming will require a larger enforcement bureaucracy, new authority for the current bureaucracy, or both?
2. Do you deny that the EPA (the obvious candidate for such authority) would welcome the greater legal authority & larger budget which would come from such laws?
3. Do you deny the Left would welcome such laws?


What is your point really? Some ebil librawl conspiracy to destroy the religion of the holy free market?

They have my sympathy - to a point - but not my support. Buncha tax-wasting Christophilic boobs.

Nah we know you are a libert. Your sites suggest it.....

Ahhh so you made a joke. Sorry my detectors were off.

No, those tribes really exist. But I'm no anthropologist. That would be my sister.

this thread is going no where it is really has become something of an argument over global warming. my concern is the validity of the scientist in question. and if he has done the relevant research and if so when is he publishing.

Did you look over that link I posted from his "research" group. Their papers are about correcting the myths and misconceptions over issues like coal burning.....

No, those tribes really exist. But I'm no anthropologist. That would be my sister.

I am more into physical Anthropology but I have a curiosity over cultural. Ask her if you would. I am curious.

Did you look over that link I posted from his "research" group. Their papers are about correcting the myths and misconceptions over issues like coal burning.....

i am focused on him personally. Always a sad day when a PHD holder sells his cred for fame and money. and i really dont have time to do more then a google search at the moment.