Real Global warming skeptics

[charrison]

The follow articles are long, but worth reading. And they should put an end to silly notion that debate on GW is warming and that all GW skeptics are fools from the flat earth society.

linkage
This guy does a good job in showing why the debate is far from over when it comes to global warming.


linkageThe next one is 10 parts, with each part highlighting one of the GW skeptics. Part 3 I find the most troubling as the IPPC has already decided what the results of study needed to be when they hired the guy to study the effect of GW and hurricanes. This is just very bad science at best.


But i have little doubt that GW fanatics will just call for these people to have their credentials revoked for questioning the the outcome of GW.

 

[DaveSimmons]

I'm not a fanatic, but many of the actions we could be taking to prevent climate change have other beneficial effects even if climate change never buries North America in ice like in The Day After Tomorrow, or gives us gills like in Waterworld

Increasing energy efficiency and curbing energy waste reduces pollution and our use of non-renewable energy sources.

Reducing use enough would loosen the grip of the oil producers from our throats.

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions also improves our health.

"Keep studying the issue until after it's too late" is the easiest course, but not the best one.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
I'm not a fanatic, but many of the actions we could be taking to prevent climate change have other beneficial effects even if climate change never buries North America in ice like in The Day After Tomorrow, or gives us gills like in Waterworld

Increasing energy efficiency and curbing energy waste reduces pollution and our use of non-renewable energy sources.

Reducing use enough would loosen the grip of the oil producers from our throats.

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions also improves our health.

"Keep studying the issue until after it's too late" is the easiest course, but not the best one.

Oh absolutely. We should try to go greener anyways. But global warming scare tactics founded on bad science are not the way to go about it.

It's just like scaring people into thinking they'll go to hell is not the way to go about ensuring people live a decent life.

 

[ericlp]

Yup, all bad science... Nothing to see here move along!

Same thing with terror scare tactics. Gotta ask yourself which one is worse I guess.

 

[brandonbull]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
I'm not a fanatic, but many of the actions we could be taking to prevent climate change have other beneficial effects even if climate change never buries North America in ice like in The Day After Tomorrow, or gives us gills like in Waterworld

Increasing energy efficiency and curbing energy waste reduces pollution and our use of non-renewable energy sources.

Reducing use enough would loosen the grip of the oil producers from our throats.

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions also improves our health.

"Keep studying the issue until after it's too late" is the easiest course, but not the best one.

Oh absolutely. We should try to go greener anyways. But global warming scare tactics founded on bad science are not the way to go about it.

It's just like scaring people into thinking they'll go to hell is not the way to go about ensuring people live a decent life.

Normally I would agree that the scare tactics are very bad, but they do seem to wake people up from Reagan's anti-energy conservation trance they were put in 27 years ago.

 

[DealMonkey]

How much you wanna bet I could show those scientists are on someone's payroll? Singer, for one, has worked for big tobacco and big oil. I'd weigh whatever they had to say with a healthy dose of skepticism. Ironic, isn't it?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: charrison
The follow articles are long, but worth reading. And they should put an end to silly notion that debate on GW is warming and that all GW skeptics are fools from the flat earth society.

linkage
This guy does a good job in showing why the debate is far from over when it comes to global warming.


linkageThe next one is 10 parts, with each part highlighting one of the GW skeptics. Part 3 I find the most troubling as the IPPC has already decided what the results of study needed to be when they hired the guy to study the effect of GW and hurricanes. This is just very bad science at best.


But i have little doubt that GW fanatics will just call for these people to have their credentials revoked for questioning the the outcome of GW.

Oh, you mean there is a flat earth society. Gosh, are you telling me there are a ton of scientists that hold that opinion too. Every time I look at a mountainous skyline I know the earth is not round.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
Increasing energy efficiency and curbing energy waste reduces pollution and our use of non-renewable energy sources.

Reducing use enough would loosen the grip of the oil producers from our throats.

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions also improves our health.

"Keep studying the issue until after it's too late" is the easiest course, but not the best one.

You can't have that. That would take the bread and butter away from folks like Charrison.

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
Increasing energy efficiency and curbing energy waste reduces pollution and our use of non-renewable energy sources.

Reducing use enough would loosen the grip of the oil producers from our throats.

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions also improves our health.

"Keep studying the issue until after it's too late" is the easiest course, but not the best one.

You can't have that. That would take the bread and butter away from folks like Charrison.

Pretty much.

That whole "profits over planet" thing, you know...

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
How much you wanna bet I could show those scientists are on someone's payroll? Singer, for one, has worked for big tobacco and big oil. I'd weigh whatever they had to say with a healthy dose of skepticism. Ironic, isn't it?

Ummm....aren't all scientists on someones payroll? Or are all these GW scientists volunteers?

 

[Moonbeam]

Didn't God, or somebody acting under that name, give man dominion over the earth. I know, I know, after the fall we are all sinners and all and shouldn't be trusted even to wipe our ass, but if God gives you dominion over the earth than hey, what can go wrong.

 

[Ilmater]

So, let's say this guy is being paid by big oil. Great. But is he wrong?

I personally think the government should step in and force the auto industry to increase average gas mileage of cars sold by any manufacturer in the order of around 20 to 30 mpg in the next 10 years. I do not believe that they can't do it, I believe they are NOT doing it. I also chose my last car heavily on gas mileage, and won't buy a truck (never and SUV), even though I'm 6'9" tall and it is extremely hard to get in and out of a car.

That being said, there should be REAL objections to his findings and real studies done that refute these things. Why? Why not try to scare the public into getting more gas-friendly cars and solar panels on new homes? Because we should do everything we can to understand how real this threat is. If you can PROVE the skeptics wrong, not just claim it, THEN you can force more change. Otherwise, these skeptics - no matter who they're paid by - give excuses to people that don't care to ever change their energy consumption.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
How much you wanna bet I could show those scientists are on someone's payroll? Singer, for one, has worked for big tobacco and big oil. I'd weigh whatever they had to say with a healthy dose of skepticism. Ironic, isn't it?

The global warming scientists are on payrolls as well.
And for the past 10 years all the grants have been going to people who are working to prove global warming is man made.
That is a big part of the problem. The decided that it is a man made problem and are out there looking for proof to back up their beliefs, not a good way to do science.

You are suppose to look at the facts and then from a conclusion, not form a conclusion and look for facts to back it up.

 

[fskimospy]

Ugh. Please provide peer reviewed papers these guys have written that contest global warming, not worthless interviews. Otherwise we have no way of knowing if what this person is saying is true.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
How much you wanna bet I could show those scientists are on someone's payroll? Singer, for one, has worked for big tobacco and big oil. I'd weigh whatever they had to say with a healthy dose of skepticism. Ironic, isn't it?

Ummm....aren't all scientists on someones payroll? Or are all these GW scientists volunteers?

As usual, you completely missed the point. On someone's payroll who demands a specific answer. For example, the hypothetical scientist on big oil's payroll who's paid to "debunk" global warming. Or here's another in case you still don't get it: the hypothetical scientist paid by big tobacco NOT to find any conclusive link between second-hand smoke and lung cancer. Get it?

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn


You are suppose to look at the facts and then from a conclusion, not form a conclusion and look for facts to back it up.

You have it backwards, again.
Never heard of the term hypothesis, I guess.

:roll:

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
How much you wanna bet I could show those scientists are on someone's payroll? Singer, for one, has worked for big tobacco and big oil. I'd weigh whatever they had to say with a healthy dose of skepticism. Ironic, isn't it?

The global warming scientists are on payrolls as well.
And for the past 10 years all the grants have been going to people who are working to prove global warming is man made.
That is a big part of the problem. The decided that it is a man made problem and are out there looking for proof to back up their beliefs, not a good way to do science.

You are suppose to look at the facts and then from a conclusion, not form a conclusion and look for facts to back it up.

Really? Do tell. Who are these grantors and what is their agenda?

 

[Jadow]

Mars is warming up too, I don't think man is contributing to the warming there.

 

[senseamp]

It's typical, conservatives just keep regurgitating the same old tripe from "think-tanks" that they hear in their AM radio echo chambers, they keep denying, deflecting, postponing, attacking the messenger, etc. Anything to avoid dealing with reality, same as with any other ideology driven agenda of theirs.

First it was "there is no global warming,"
then it was "there is global warming but we didn't cause it,"
now it is "there is global warming, we may have caused it, but it's not a bad thing,"
soon it will be "there is global warming, we caused it, it is bad, but not much we can do about it,"
then it will be "there is global warming, we caused it, it is bad, we can do something about it, but it's too expensive,"
then eventually they might deal with reality and get on board.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
How much you wanna bet I could show those scientists are on someone's payroll? Singer, for one, has worked for big tobacco and big oil. I'd weigh whatever they had to say with a healthy dose of skepticism. Ironic, isn't it?

This argument is bunk. All scientists are on someone's payroll - generally on the payroll of an organization that is pushing an agenda.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: senseamp
It's typical, conservatives just keep regurgitating the same old tripe from "think-tanks" that they hear in their AM radio echo chambers, they keep denying, deflecting, postponing, attacking the messenger, etc. Anything to avoid dealing with reality, same as with any other ideology driven agenda of theirs.

First it was "there is no global warming,"
then it was "there is global warming but we didn't cause it,"
now it is "there is global warming, we may have caused it, but it's not a bad thing,"
soon it will be "there is global warming, we caused it, it is bad, but not much we can do about it,"
then it will be "there is global warming, we caused it, it is bad, we can do something about it, but it's too expensive,"
then eventually they might deal with reality and get on board.

I bet someone just like you tried to make the same argument about 30 years ago, just replace "global warming" with "global cooling".

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

It isn't about science anymore, it's about religion. 'Man caused' global warming is their religion and Al Gore is their god. Science has been politicized to the point that it is no longer truly objective and unbiased...it's become Orwellian.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
It isn't about science anymore, it's about religion. 'Man caused' global warming is their religion and Al Gore is their god. Science has been politicized to the point that it is no longer truly objective and unbiased...it's become Orwellian.

Man you Ultra Right Wingers sure are creative. A Religion..Bwuahahahaha:roll:

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
It isn't about science anymore, it's about religion. 'Man caused' global warming is their religion and Al Gore is their god. Science has been politicized to the point that it is no longer truly objective and unbiased...it's become Orwellian.

Yup, the same damn dummies that believe in evolution believe is global warming.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
It isn't about science anymore, it's about religion. 'Man caused' global warming is their religion and Al Gore is their god. Science has been politicized to the point that it is no longer truly objective and unbiased...it's become Orwellian.

Oh jebus christ. WWYBYWB?