World may not be warming, say scientists

[sandorski]

That's all fine and good...except no one (who in any part is taken seriously) is arguing against researching greener energy alternatives.

The problem is that once one blindly accepts the Ecokook's positions, that removes the last major obstacle for the Ecokook's to start going batshit insane with the policies they want to push. Because, then it'll be: No no, you accepted the Science, and since you accepted the Science, we need to do xyz. Remember, we were right all along, so, trust us.

Letting the Ecokook's control economic and ecological policy is not something we should be encouraging...

Chuck

That's why I say Ridiculous. Scientists and Politicians are all that matters in dealing with the issue. "Eco kooks" are just your Strawman of Fail.

 

[Blackjack200]

And your response is the mindset of the elitist AND mindless left in the US.

Sure. I'm amused at how the global warming deniers always whine about being attacked, but have no problem calling people elitist and mindless. Bravo.

I understand the claims just fine. I also understand that there is bias behind them.

And what bias would that be? Oh, right, so that the scientists can keep their jobs, right? So that we need them. That's the story everyone likes to tell. The problem is that if this was just a scam to keep climate scientists employed, they would be telling us that they need to study this more, not that the issue is largely settled and that it's time to act.

I am not compelled to lower my standard of living based on guess work and biased computer modelling. Sorry, but the entire mindset of "you're too stupid to understand, just follow along" will and SHOULD be met with massive backlash.

That IS the main theme in GW/CC threads. That we are all too stupid and uneducated to understand this and we should just follow this "consensus" of scientists. The minute I hear that, I am reminded of religion. I am reminded of scams. I've never been told that on any other subject. From medicine to astronomy, from physics to philosphy. The ONLY time I have been told this is with religion, and MMGW.

RED FLAG!!!

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said you were stupid, but the fact that you read it that way is interesting. I said you don't want to understand. There's a big difference. And people follow the advice of scientists all the time without understanding. Do most people understand why smoking causes heart disease and cancer? Do most people understand the HIV virus? No, they just don't smoke and wear condoms because the scientists tell them to.

I love how sceptics on this issue are compared to religionists (hypocrisy anyone?) conspirasy theorists and creationists. I happen to be agonstic and hold no belief in any of the popular conspirasy theories. I AM a critical thinker.

Do I think the climate is changing? Yes. Do I believe man is causing it? No. I have not seen any VALID proof of this beyond computer models programed by the very people who have a vested interest in proving their point.

To know with 100% certainty is impossible. If you have a better explanation for the warming that you admit here, then forward it, or cite it. Right now, the position of the world's climate scientists is that man is causing global warming primarily through the emission of massive amounts of CO2.

And as an atheist myself, it's disappointing to see other non-theists behave like this. It makes me think that religion may be more of a symptom than a cause for irrationality.

So, no. I will not accept a lowering of my lifestyle. I will not accept skyrocketing energy prices and the resulting rise in the cost of foods and goods. I will not accept the starvation of millions of poor as food becomes more expensive. All this based on some very suspect theory and pushed by a group known to loathe industrialization and capitalism.

Nope. And as time goes by the bias and outright fraud of the MMGW theory creators is being exposed for just that.

So you refuse to believe climate models, but you lack no confidence in your own ability to predict the precise impact of addressing the issue global warming? Many, if not most of the people thinking about this issue recognize that solutions will have to be found that don't send first world nations back to the stone age. Creative solutions are virtually impossible, however, as long as a majority of the population remains in stubborn denial.

And speaking of religion, I've seen about as much proof for MMGW as I've seen for a deity.

I am 42 years old. I have lived through MANY manufactured emergences. From the fabled running out of landfill space, to Y2K, to the coming ice age of the 70s... all were bullshit hysteria. This is exactly the same. We have people telling us a "consensus has formed and the subject is just too complicated for us to understand" just as all the other bullshit scams have done.

Y2K was a combination of a legitimate concern and a ton of opportunistic scams. Climate change is not immune to those scams either, and I have no issue criticizing them when I see them. Many of the "green" products marketed today are total garbage.

As for landfill space, there are lots of places where people die or suffer from exposure to toxic refuse. China and India being prime examples.

And btw, no one ever claimed that Y2K or landfill space, or any other issue was "...just too complicated to understand"

 

[Amused]

More confirmation. :shrug:

I'm going to let you in on a Secret. The Success of the US has been through Change and Adaptation. If you attempt to stop Time, you will Fail. The rest of the World is going forward, don't fall behind.

You jump to the most Sinister conclusion, rather than the Fact that all he meant was Change. Change can be Good or Bad, not just the Bad you assume.

I'm all for change and adaptation. POSITIVE chage and adaptation. But loss of freedom is not a change I will accept and lowering my standard of living is not an adaptation I am willing to go through. Not for a manufactured "emergency" unproven and riddled with fraud and bias.

Trying to lower energy use during a severe recession is like throwing away a motorboat for a rowboat to get upstream. Of all the worst possible times to perpetrate this scam.

 

[werepossum]

I'm all for change and adaptation. POSITIVE chage and adaptation. But loss of freedom is not a change I will accept and lowering my standard of living is not an adaptation I am willing to go through. Not for a manufactured "emergency" unproven and riddled with fraud and bias.

Trying to lower energy use during a severe recession is like throwing away a motorboat for a rowboat to get upstream. Of all the worst possible times to perpetrate this scam.

Depends. Energy use is an overhead cost - you consume energy to be comfortable, move product, make a suitable environment to make or sell something. Energy consumption is generally an excellent indicator of a society's standard of living, but it's not an end unto itself - a more efficient society could use less energy and maintain a higher standard of living (look at Japan and much of northern Europe.) It's possible, through greater insulation or efficiency in distribution and/or generation, to cut energy use and/or energy cost without hurting lifestyle or utility. For instance, if a new home were built with super insulation techniques, it would consume less energy to maintain the same level of comfort. Thus you would have more money to spend on other things (thereby helping the economy) or to save (thereby helping the economy by providing concentrated capital for creation or expansion of production.)

If we had today solar panels that could pay back their initial cost within a reasonable time (say, five years) then a homeowner could generate his own needs plus a surplus during the daytime. Your energy costs would plummet because the excess energy generated and fed into the grid during the daytime would offset (partially or completely depending on location and power of the solar cells) your nighttime use. Again, you would have more money to spend on other things. Similarly, energy generated by wind or large-scale solar is energy that does not have to be purchased from outside the country, leaving that money to work in our economy. (Extra oil and natural gas produced in this country have the same effect.)

 

[Jaskalas]

And what bias would that be?

Falsified temperature data.

 

[Atreus21]

Falsified temperature data.

Oh that's good.

 

[Blackjack200]

Oh that's good.

Yeah, "falsified temperature data" is an interesting bias to have

 

[HumblePie]

Falsified temperature data.

I'm convinced now! It's Global Warming run for the hills! We are all going to die! DOOM I say DOOOOooOOOooOOmmmmm!!!

 

[Atreus21]

Yeah, "falsified temperature data" is an interesting bias to have

Well, global-warming supporters have no business lecturing others on bias.

 

[Fern]

Falsified temperature data.

LOL

Fern

 

[chucky2]

That's why I say Ridiculous. Scientists and Politicians are all that matters in dealing with the issue. "Eco kooks" are just your Strawman of Fail.

Ecokooks are their own strawman of fail, Yes (notice you don't need to cap words in the middle of sentences needlessly, although it is interesting to see sometimes your mental view of what you feel should be cap'd), as they fail to release data, release unaltered data, fail to release models/code, fail to operate ethically (as the e-mails show), etc. etc.

So Yes, I do agree with you, the Ecokook's have failed.

Congrats, we Agree on something!

Chuck

 

[Blackjack200]

...fail to operate ethically (as the e-mails show), etc. etc.

So Yes, I do agree with you, the Ecokook's have failed.

Congrats, we Agree on something!

Chuck

What do you think of the ethics of stealing email?

 

[chucky2]

Far less worse that trying to dupe the entire world into major lifestyle and economic changes because "you know better".

But, you'd rather they weren't leaked, so those same scientists could just keep on duping the world and working in collusion with each other, amirite?

 

[bfdd]

What do you think of the ethics of stealing email?

It was wrong and unjustified, that doesn't mean good didn't come out of it.

Falsified temperature data.

btw HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

What do you think of the ethics of stealing email?

Sometimes the end justifies the means...I imagine that this may be difficult for you to accept...but much good has come out of this.

 

[Blackjack200]

Sometimes the end justifies the means...I imagine that this may be difficult for you to accept...but much good has come out of this.

Oh I see. So the ends justify the means for the global warming deniers, but not the scientists.

Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Blackjack200]

Far less worse that trying to dupe the entire world into major lifestyle and economic changes because "you know better".

But, you'd rather they weren't leaked, so those same scientists could just keep on duping the world and working in collusion with each other, amirite?

It was wrong and unjustified, that doesn't mean good didn't come out of it.

Sometimes the end justifies the means...I imagine that this may be difficult for you to accept...but much good has come out of this.

Also interesting that your inconsistant standards for ethical conduct between the deniers and the scientists is analagous to your inconsistant standards for evidence.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Oh I see. So the ends justify the means for the global warming deniers, but not the scientists.

Thanks for clarifying.

Wow...that's not what I meant at all. Here...I'll make it simple for you. Transparency in science...this is considered a good thing to most people. Deleting data, refusing to share data, refusing to share data manipulation methodology, manipulation of the peer review process, collusion to undermine dissenting viewpoints, refusing FOIA requests, falsification of data to deliberatively mislead...these things are considered a bad thing to most people...especially scientists.

Kapeesh?

 

[monovillage]

This article by liberal columnist Thomas Fuller from The San Francisco Examiner is a pretty decent attempt by a lukewarmer to point out some of the problems that skeptics have with AGW.

http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-Envi...arming-The-Nuremberg-Climate-Trials-A-defence

 

[Blackjack200]

Kapeesh?

No.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Also interesting that your inconsistant standards for ethical conduct between the deniers and the scientists is analagous to your inconsistant standards for evidence.

If anyone here has inconsistant ethical standards...that would be you.

Stealing those emails was wrong...no question about it. But isn't that particular ethical breach incredibly inconsequential compared to what was going on at CRU and the IPCC inner circle?

 

[sandorski]

I'm all for change and adaptation. POSITIVE chage and adaptation. But loss of freedom is not a change I will accept and lowering my standard of living is not an adaptation I am willing to go through. Not for a manufactured "emergency" unproven and riddled with fraud and bias.

Trying to lower energy use during a severe recession is like throwing away a motorboat for a rowboat to get upstream. Of all the worst possible times to perpetrate this scam.

You have the Freedom to spew CO2 into the air? Just what Freedom is at risk here?

 

[mattpegher]

The key to the global warming debate is that politics in science lead to bad science. The biggest failure is that we donot demand proof that the remedies are safe, do not have worse consequences. I admit wieghing the risk and benefits is difficult when the direct quantification of human impact on climate change is not yet clear, ie how much of the change is natural variation, how much is natural greenhouse gasses and how much is human impact. It may be true but I am not convinced that it is a crisis, but I am sure that blinding developing remedies may lead to negative consequences. One example I heard recently is that wind farms can have a serious impact on local bird and bat populations. Sure this could probably be modified to limit impact but not without first studying the process. History has shown that everytime we rush to fix a problem we screw it up, just look at the current preditor vs prey animal ecology in the US, (50x more deer in the US today than in 1900).

 

[Blackjack200]

If anyone here has inconsistant ethical standards...that would be you.

Stealing those emails was wrong...no question about it. But isn't that particular ethical breach incredibly inconsequential compared to what was going on at CRU and the IPCC inner circle?

Please show me where I questioned anyone's ethics. I cannot have inconsistent ethical standards if I never questioned anyones ethics.

I think stealing those emails was a crime, and I think the crime should be investigated and the perpetrators prosecuted. I think any illegal behavior that went on at the CRU or any other research lab should be treated the same way.

How's that for consistency?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Please show me where I questioned anyone's ethics. I cannot have inconsistent ethical standards if I never questioned anyone's ethics.

I think stealing those emails was a crime, and I think the crime should be investigated and the perpetrators prosecuted. I think any illegal behavior that went on at the CRU or any other research lab should be treated the same way.

How's that for consistency?

Then we agree.