PRO

Political Debates and Polls Forum

CON


Go Back   4Forums.com Political Debates and Polls > Topics > Environmental Debates

Break out your Longjohns-Global Cooling is upon us: Originally Posted by Penfold George Monbiot puts it so well. It's all down to age. " There is no point in denying it: we're losing. Climate change denial is spreading like a contagious disease. It ...
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

E: The Environmental Magazine Subscription People Magazine
  #61 (permalink)  
Old 11-03-2009, 11:13 AM
JPSartre12's Avatar
Healthcare- I gots mine
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 8,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Penfold View Post
George Monbiot puts it so well. It's all down to age.

" There is no point in denying it: we're losing. Climate change denial is spreading like a contagious disease. It exists in a sphere that cannot be reached by evidence or reasoned argument; any attempt to draw attention to scientific findings is greeted with furious invective. This sphere is expanding with astonishing speed.

A survey last month by the Pew Research Centre suggests that the proportion of Americans who believe there is solid evidence that the world has been warming over the last few decades has fallen from 71% to 57% in just 18 months. Another survey, conducted in January by Rasmussen Reports, suggests that, due to a sharp rise since 2006, US voters who believe global warming has natural causes (44%) outnumber those who believe it is the result of human action (41%).
..........

It certainly doesn't reflect the state of the science, which has hardened dramatically over the past two years. If you don't believe me, open any recent edition of Science or Nature or any peer-reviewed journal specialising in atmospheric or environmental science. Go on, try it. The debate about global warming that's raging on the internet and in the rightwing press does not reflect any such debate in the scientific journals.

An American scientist I know suggests that these books and websites cater to a new literary market: people with room-temperature IQs. He didn't say whether he meant fahrenheit or centigrade. But this can't be the whole story. Plenty of intelligent people have also declared themselves sceptics. ........ "


Clive James isn't a climate change sceptic, he's a sucker - but this may be the reason | George Monbiot | Comment is free | The Guardian

Oh really? Here's a list of 31,478 American scientists that disagree with the "consensus"
Global Warming Petition Project

From that site:
Quote:
Why is the Petition Project necessary?

In December 1997, then U. S. Vice-President Al Gore participated in a meeting in Kyoto, Japan during which he signed a treaty to ration world energy production based upon fear of human-caused global warming. This treaty was not, however, presented to the United States Senate for ratification.

Since before that Kyoto meeting and continuing to the present day, Mr. Gore and his supporters at the United Nations and elsewhere have claimed that the "science is settled" – that an overwhelming "consensus" of scientists agrees with the hypothesis of human-caused global warming, with only a handful of skeptical scientists in disagreement.

Moreover, for more than 10 years these proponents of world energy rationing have consistently argued that, in view of this claimed scientific "consensus," no further discussion of the science involved in this issue is warranted before legislative action is taken to heavily tax, regulate, and ration hydrocarbon energy.

Since, however, these claims were not successful in convincing the United States government to initiate energy rationing, the United Nations has held a series of international meetings attended by a central group of about 600 scientists, some additional scientists outside of this group, and a large number of political and bureaucratic representatives – approximately 2,000 in all. The United Nations has also hosted larger meetings, including many non-scientist participants from environmental, business, and political organizations.

During and after each of these meetings, there have been further publicity campaigns claiming that the "science is settled" – that the "consensus" of scientists in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming is so overwhelming that further examination of the science is unnecessary.

Realizing, from discussions with their scientific colleagues, that this claimed "consensus" does not exist, a group of scientists initiated the Petition Project in early 1998. Thousands of signatures were gathered in a campaign during 1998-1999. Between 1999 and 2007, the list of petition signatories grew gradually, without a special campaign. Between October 2007 and March 2008, a new campaign for signatures was initiated. The majority of the current listed signatories signed or re-signed the petition after October 2007. The original review article that accompanied the petition effort in 1998-1999 was replaced in October 2007 with a new review incorporating the research literature up to that date.

The renewed petition campaign in 2007 was prompted by an escalation of the claims of "consensus," release of the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" by Mr. Al Gore, and related events. Mr. Gore's movie, asserting a "consensus" and "settled science" in agreement about human-caused global warming, conveyed the claims about human-caused global warming to ordinary movie goers and to public school children, to whom the film was widely distributed. Unfortunately, Mr. Gore's movie contains many very serious incorrect claims, which no informed, honest scientist could endorse.

The campaign to severely ration hydrocarbon energy technology has now been markedly expanded. In the course of this campaign, many scientifically invalid claims about impending climate emergencies are being made. Simultaneously, proposed political actions to severely reduce hydrocarbon use now threaten the prosperity of Americans and the very existence of hundreds of millions of people in poorer countries.

As Professor Seitz states, in his Petition Project letter which speaks of this impending threat to all humanity, "It is especially important for America to hear from its citizens who have the training necessary to evaluate the relevant data and offer sound advice."

The Petition Project is a means by which those citizens are offering that advice.
__________________
"The problem with Socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money."
- Margaret Thatcher

"We had the machine scared and scrambling, and for them it is just the beginning of an election year filled with surprises. They will be challenged again and again across this country. When there's trouble in Massachusetts, there's trouble everywhere -- and now they know it." Senator Scott Brown (R MA)
Reply With Quote
  #62 (permalink)  
Old 11-03-2009, 01:22 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Lancaster, UK
Posts: 4,691
Quote:
Originally Posted by gansao View Post
The Guardian is as leftie as the Daily Mail is right.
George Monboit is as left as Peter Hitchens is right.

So what we have is a bias left wing newspaper publishing an article by a bias left wing columnist.
The Guardian is nowhere near as far left as the Daily Mail is right. Try the Morning Star or Socialist Worker for comparable bias. Monbiot himself is fairly lefty, but he's still correct.
__________________
“When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist” - Helder Camara
“It is not the will of God for some to have everything and others to have nothing. This cannot be God” - Oscar Romero
"It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder" - Einstein
"We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him" - CS Lewis
Reply With Quote
  #63 (permalink)  
Old 11-03-2009, 01:49 PM
Archangel's Avatar
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: In the presence of the Master:
Posts: 10,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuz Life View Post
Why can't we get this guy to run for Prez or dept. of energy Czar?
We probably could, but since he isn't a leftist alarmist, he would never be considered for the position by the powers that be.
Reply With Quote
  #64 (permalink)  
Old 11-03-2009, 03:31 PM
snakespit's Avatar
Registered Registrant
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Under your bed, waiting for you to fall asleep.
Posts: 2,257
Send a message via AIM to snakespit
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archangel View Post
Can you explain where these scientists are getting their facts snakespit? And can you prove their observations are any less credible than those you choose to believe? YouTube - Climate Change - Is CO2 the cause? - Pt 1 of 4
It's not my job to prove or disprove a scientists facts. Strangely, that is the job of the scientist. I do appologize if the data I posted from the USGS and the CDIAC are not as credible as your YouTube video.
__________________
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and monkeys do too (if they have a gun)". -Eddie Izzard

Long is the way
And hard, that out of Hell leads up to Light. -Milton
Reply With Quote
  #65 (permalink)  
Old 11-03-2009, 03:50 PM
gansao's Avatar
Sarah says reload
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Near London ,England
Posts: 3,110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo Bennett View Post
The Guardian is nowhere near as far left as the Daily Mail is right. Try the Morning Star or Socialist Worker for comparable bias. Monbiot himself is fairly lefty, but he's still correct.
Absolute rubbish. Its every bit as leftie bias as the Mail is bias to the right.
You cant see it because you believe the rubbish it pumps out.
__________________
When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing—they believe in anything
G.K.Chesterton

From:Kevin Trenberth U.S climate expert.
Date:Mon,12 Oct,2009

The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't.
(In an email debate over a BBC report on the apparent dip in global warming since 2001)
Reply With Quote
  #66 (permalink)  
Old 11-03-2009, 04:20 PM
Chuz Life's Avatar
Realist
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,051
Exclamation I am already on the record.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by snakespit View Post
It's not my job to prove or disprove a scientists facts. Strangely, that is the job of the scientist. I do appologize if the data I posted from the USGS and the CDIAC are not as credible as your YouTube video.
Just a reminder, I am already on record of stating that man can and probably does have an affect on global temperatures. (see here) "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction" is a fundamental law of scientific thinking, after all.

That said,...

I have yet to see any studies on the Earth's ability to self regulate or to completely absorb or neutralize environmental fluctuations.

And so,... I'm still a long LONG way from buying the "sky is falling" paranoia being crammed down our throats by elitists who have nothing but disdain and contempt for anyone who dare question their scientific methods or data.

That sort of contempt only fuels my own scepticism and I'm confident it fuels others as well.

And so I have many questions that I would want answers to, before I will ever buy into the "we are nearing the point of no return" "the end is near" hysteria we are being bombarded with.

1: Simple Question; "how much ice would have to melt (current thinking) to result in the catastrophic flooding that so many are worried about? I haven't seen Big Al's movie so forgive me if it's in there.
__________________
"How can a government that has the authority to grant or to deny "personhood" to a prebirth child not also have the authority to define "marriage" as it sees fit to address the general welfare of the nation?" - Chuz Life

Something smells!

Last edited by Chuz Life; 11-03-2009 at 05:29 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #67 (permalink)  
Old 11-03-2009, 04:33 PM
Symbiote's Avatar
Bringing the Light
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Sydney, Oz
Posts: 3,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by Penfold View Post
" There is no point in denying it: we're losing. Climate change denial is spreading like a contagious disease. It exists in a sphere that cannot be reached by evidence or reasoned argument; any attempt to draw attention to scientific findings is greeted with furious invective. This sphere is expanding with astonishing speed.
What's amazing is that global warming hysterics consider "argument from authority" to be a "reasoned argument".

The only "scientific" evidence a skeptic will be provided with is this:

A lot of government funded scientists with a vested interest in promoting global warming believe in global warming, therefore end of discussion.

And then they wonder how people can fail to be convinced...

Sit back and watch TV 24/7 (outside of the XXXXXX on Fox) and you'll believe fervently in global warming. Do some research and you'll have big doubts. Then begins the abuse, as the same vested interests yell at you for being an ignoramus and not blindly following whatever they shove down your throat.

"An American scientist I know suggests that these books and websites cater to a new literary market: people with room-temperature IQs"

So one scientist calls those who disagree with him XXXXXX, while the author of the piece you link to accuses them of suffering from some sort of psychological defect imagined by a 1970s anthropologist. How compelling.
__________________
He or she who supports a State organized in a military way – whether directly or indirectly – participates in sin. Each man takes part in the sin by contributing to the maintenance of the State by paying taxes.

~ Gandhi
Reply With Quote
  #68 (permalink)  
Old 11-03-2009, 05:13 PM
Penfold's Avatar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,478
Quote:
Originally Posted by gansao View Post
Absolute rubbish. Its every bit as leftie bias as the Mail is bias to the right.
You cant see it because you believe the rubbish it pumps out.
Look in a mirror. The word is "biased".
__________________
" ... It's not as though he proved anything, he only refuted my evidence. ..." Archangel 04.01.09

" ... this egregiously ignorant christian ... Archangel 03.09.09

“Probably the toughest time in anyone's life is when you have to murder a loved one because they're the devil.”
Reply With Quote
  #69 (permalink)  
Old 11-03-2009, 05:15 PM
JPSartre12's Avatar
Healthcare- I gots mine
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 8,995
Anybody want to debate AGW against me? I'll take the "you're full of doodoo" position and you can take "the Sky is Falling" position.
I'm serious about the debate; we can work out the exact resolution.
__________________
"The problem with Socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money."
- Margaret Thatcher

"We had the machine scared and scrambling, and for them it is just the beginning of an election year filled with surprises. They will be challenged again and again across this country. When there's trouble in Massachusetts, there's trouble everywhere -- and now they know it." Senator Scott Brown (R MA)
Reply With Quote
  #70 (permalink)  
Old 11-03-2009, 05:18 PM
gansao's Avatar
Sarah says reload
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Near London ,England
Posts: 3,110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Penfold View Post
Look in a mirror. The word is "biased".
Bias is a term used to describe a tendency or preference towards a particular perspective, ideology or result, when the tendency interferes with the ability to be impartial, unprejudiced, or objective.[1]. In other words, bias is generally seen as a 'one-sided' perspective. The term biased refers to a person or group who is judged to exhibit bias. It is used to describe an attitude, judgment, or behavior that is influenced by a prejudice. Bias can be unconscious or conscious in awareness. Having a bias is part of a normal development. Labeling someone as biased in some regard implies they need a greater or more flexible perspective in that area, or that they need to consider more deeply the context.

You are wrong as usual.
__________________
When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing—they believe in anything
G.K.Chesterton

From:Kevin Trenberth U.S climate expert.
Date:Mon,12 Oct,2009

The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't.
(In an email debate over a BBC report on the apparent dip in global warming since 2001)
Reply With Quote
  #71 (permalink)  
Old 11-03-2009, 06:26 PM
Archangel's Avatar
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: In the presence of the Master:
Posts: 10,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPSartre12 View Post
Anybody want to debate AGW against me? I'll take the "you're full of doodoo" position and you can take "the Sky is Falling" position.
I'm serious about the debate; we can work out the exact resolution.
Snakespit will debate you JP, he seems to believe in the AGW propaganda he posts around here. Oh wait, he may not want you to prove he's full of doodoo. Oh well, back to the ole drawing board.
Reply With Quote
  #72 (permalink)  
Old 11-03-2009, 09:28 PM
snakespit's Avatar
Registered Registrant
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Under your bed, waiting for you to fall asleep.
Posts: 2,257
Send a message via AIM to snakespit
We're all gonna die!!! (eventually)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Archangel View Post
Snakespit will debate you JP, he seems to believe in the AGW propaganda he posts around here. Oh wait, he may not want you to prove he's full of doodoo. Oh well, back to the ole drawing board.
Thank you for volunteering me Archie. It's certainly not your place to do so, but hey...would I expect less?

I pretty much consider what we have been doing here as debate. I have never and will never engage in a "formal" debate, as I really see no need. I post here for fun, to educate myself (and others on occasion), and to learn about different points of view. You can ask me any questions here that you can in a formal debate. I don't consider this to be a contest, merely a chance to present and defend points of view. As long as 2 people honestly believe what they are saying, there are no winners or losers.

And just to be clear:

1. I do believe what I have posted. Why do I believe it? Because I have taken the time to read, research, and educate myself. Believe it or not I used to think "global warming" was a bunch of hoodoo, until I took the time to actually learn about it. It is up to each person to examine the evidence and decide for themselves. If you take a position without fairly considering all of the evidence, you are only cheating yourself.

2. You cannot prove that I am full of doodoo, just as I cannot prove that you are full of doodoo. You may believe that I am wrong, and I may believe that you are wrong, but in the end, neither of us can prove it. I'm not here to prove anything. If you can prove that global warming is false, I will be the first to admit I was wrong. Good luck.

3. I don't run around here saying that the sky is falling. I am not paranoid about global warming in any way, shape, or form. I don't believe that global warming is going to effect me during my lifetime in a significant way.

4. I believe that humans will eventually be gone from the earth, whether by our own actions or some sort of catastrophic natural disaster. The earth will heal itself, and life will go on. I however do not believe that this in any way means that we should not be good stewards of the earth while we are here.
__________________
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and monkeys do too (if they have a gun)". -Eddie Izzard

Long is the way
And hard, that out of Hell leads up to Light. -Milton
Reply With Quote
  #73 (permalink)  
Old 11-04-2009, 12:53 PM
gansao's Avatar
Sarah says reload
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Near London ,England
Posts: 3,110
Quote:
Originally Posted by gansao View Post
The cult of global warming is a cult built around some scientific evidence.
Why did you not address the hysterical ad?
Do you not want a sensible and measured discourse about global warming from our governments or not?


Asked how he reconciles that realization with the wonkish content of the book, Gore at first seems stymied. But then, when I prompt him, he points to pages on the spiritual dimension of climate change, the idea that God gave man stewardship over the earth, and that preserving it for future generations is a sacred obligation. Then he opens his laptop to show a commercial by his Alliance for Climate Protection, in which the Revs. Al Sharpton and Pat Robertson make an odd-couple plea for "taking care of the planet." Gore allows that he's been tailoring the slide-show training he gives to faith-based volunteer groups. "I've done a Christian [-based] training program; I have a Muslim training program and a Jewish training program coming up, also a Hindu program coming up. I trained 200 Christian ministers and lay leaders here in Nashville in a version of the slide show that is filled with scriptural references. It's probably my favorite version, but I don't use it very often because it can come off as proselytizing."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/220552/page/2


Ladies and gentlemen the cult of global warming
__________________
When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing—they believe in anything
G.K.Chesterton

From:Kevin Trenberth U.S climate expert.
Date:Mon,12 Oct,2009

The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't.
(In an email debate over a BBC report on the apparent dip in global warming since 2001)
Reply With Quote
  #74 (permalink)  
Old 11-04-2009, 05:51 PM
JPSartre12's Avatar
Healthcare- I gots mine
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 8,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by snakespit View Post
Thank you for volunteering me Archie. It's certainly not your place to do so, but hey...would I expect less?

I pretty much consider what we have been doing here as debate. I have never and will never engage in a "formal" debate, as I really see no need. I post here for fun, to educate myself (and others on occasion), and to learn about different points of view. You can ask me any questions here that you can in a formal debate. I don't consider this to be a contest, merely a chance to present and defend points of view. As long as 2 people honestly believe what they are saying, there are no winners or losers.

And just to be clear:

1. I do believe what I have posted. Why do I believe it? Because I have taken the time to read, research, and educate myself. Believe it or not I used to think "global warming" was a bunch of hoodoo, until I took the time to actually learn about it. It is up to each person to examine the evidence and decide for themselves. If you take a position without fairly considering all of the evidence, you are only cheating yourself.

2. You cannot prove that I am full of doodoo, just as I cannot prove that you are full of doodoo. You may believe that I am wrong, and I may believe that you are wrong, but in the end, neither of us can prove it. I'm not here to prove anything. If you can prove that global warming is false, I will be the first to admit I was wrong. Good luck.

3. I don't run around here saying that the sky is falling. I am not paranoid about global warming in any way, shape, or form. I don't believe that global warming is going to effect me during my lifetime in a significant way.

4. I believe that humans will eventually be gone from the earth, whether by our own actions or some sort of catastrophic natural disaster. The earth will heal itself, and life will go on. I however do not believe that this in any way means that we should not be good stewards of the earth while we are here.
I respect your position. Formal debates aren't for everyone and this one has been far more civil than most free-for-alls.
As you probably have guessed, AGW is an issue that I have done my research on and have found the populist opinion to be nothing more than Chicken Littleism. There is no scientific consensus and its major proponent, the IPCC, is one of the most corrupt pseudo-scienticic organizations in the world.
If you do nothing else WRT this topic, read how the IPCC functions, how its reports are generated, etc., It is a politically-, not scientific-driven organization.
__________________
"The problem with Socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money."
- Margaret Thatcher

"We had the machine scared and scrambling, and for them it is just the beginning of an election year filled with surprises. They will be challenged again and again across this country. When there's trouble in Massachusetts, there's trouble everywhere -- and now they know it." Senator Scott Brown (R MA)
Reply With Quote
  #75 (permalink)  
Old 11-05-2009, 08:08 AM
snakespit's Avatar
Registered Registrant
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Under your bed, waiting for you to fall asleep.
Posts: 2,257
Send a message via AIM to snakespit
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuz Life View Post
1: Simple Question; "how much ice would have to melt (current thinking) to result in the catastrophic flooding that so many are worried about? I haven't seen Big Al's movie so forgive me if it's in there.
Well, that would depend on what you call catastrophic.

Simple answer

And I didn't see Gore's movie either, as I have no interest in watching that bloviating drag queen talk about anything.
__________________
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and monkeys do too (if they have a gun)". -Eddie Izzard

Long is the way
And hard, that out of Hell leads up to Light. -Milton
Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0