Global Climate Change scam

[harper]

I don't believe anyone is asking one to abandon capitalism. Unless you define capitolism as wasteful emmissions and general excess causing high emmissions. Scientists are only pointing out that emmissions should be controlled and decreased with an outlook for the future. We all know that if they could increase emmisions to make more money they would.

Current weather conditions have little correlation to overall global warming. The data set is over period where temp records have been taken not a month.

 

[K-Man]

"Reputable scientists"--at least certain ones--say that man is causing global warming.

But 25 years ago "reputable scientists" said that we were in danger from global cooling. I remember worries from some of these same serious people that the ice buildup at the South Pole could knock the Earth off its established axis because of the weight of the ice. US outposts at the pole since the late 1950s had had flagpoles and structures covered by rising ice, and this was no joke. I myself saw pictures of a flagpole near the pole that had had all but the top 2-3 feet buried in ice. (Keep in mind that planes that crash in Greenland will be buried in ice in just a few years.) There was so much worry that it inspired schemes to use soot and the like to darken the ice to encourage melting in the sun.

I've had enough education, including lots and lots of science, and am cynical enough to be very, very skeptical of the motives behind much of the global warming hysteria. Many of the most visible scientists--the late Carl Sagan was an example--had utopian leftist beliefs and undoubtedly have twisted findings to suit their worldview of how things should be.

A big problem here is that most people are completely scientifically illiterate and are innumerate and so take what these people claim at face value. It was a Soviet defector, Viktor Suvorov, who first said that the Soviet intelligence agencies referred to Western environmentalists as "watermelons": green on the outside and red on the inside, and oh, so delicious when manipulated. The USSR is gone, but the watermelons remain.

If you are concerned about the likes of President Bush and his motives, you should be just as skeptical about these scientists. Untrammeled capitalism is bad, but so will be the greens' socialist paradise.

 

[MarkC]

Just because you're an environmentalist doesn't mean you're a socialist, or even a "Green".
Dispute evidence 'til you turn blue. Both sides have their own motivations, obviously.
Global warming or not, it makes sense to reduce as much of all types of pollution as possible and keep the place clean and healthy.

 

[jsharp]

Thank you Dan for saving me the trouble

ekrampitzjr - Carl Sagan was a brilliant man who consistently tried to bend science to support is lefty views. I remember very clearly his predictions before the first gulf war of a "nuclear winter" if the oil fields were set on fire. The fires turned out to be a real yawner, noticed only by those in the immediate area and Red Adairs crews.

I wasn't trying to say current weather patterns were related to global warming, only point out the relative complexity of the problems with predicting climate change. Predicting a trend that has been running for hundreds or even thousands of years via a few decades of observation is a questionable use of a snapshot in my mind.

It's been warming since the 1800's, at the end of "the little ice age." Only in the last few years have some people attempted to lay the blame for this on industrialization. Much of it seems to be similar to the Luddites of the 19th century, but shrouded in modern science and with a "we know what's best for the little people" attitude thrown in. When looking at these data it's best to remember correlation != causation.

MarkC has a good point. It makes sense to me to pollute as little as possible within reason. The trouble we have is defining "as little as possible" vs. the economic and social costs and arriving at a level of "as little as possible" that satisfies most people...

[ January 14, 2004, 11:42 AM: Message edited by: jsharp ]

 

[carrera79]

The worst part about all of this is that people are being brainwashed into it. Our children are learning this in our schools. I'm in my mid twenties, and most of my friends and aquaintances take this for fact because it's been told to them throughout their lives. When I was in college most of the people around me took everything that was said to them as fact. The average human being gets led around like a sheep with absolutely no interest in researching or testing what is said to them by someone with apparent athority. I love sites like this not just for the information that I have learned about my car and its oil but for the interesting people who post their opinions, usually opinions that have a great deal of thought behind them. Going through everyday life (especially in the industry I'm in where I speak to people every day) one begins to think that he is surrounded by unthinking automotons who's only need is to get their "Friends" fix at the end of the day. Whatever happened to attempting to figure out why everything works as it does? It's beyond me sometimes. Sorry about that rant, I just get fed up sometimes with listening to the worlds Bull****. Thanks to everyone here for helping to stay sane (or is it the other way around)

 

[Hasbeen]

Even "IF" there is such a thing as global warming, The very thought that we can change it is absurd!!! Might as well **** into the wind! There earth is getting older and that`s all there is to it! I`m all for doing our part, but I do not think we should all start walking everywhere we go either! You ever watched a jet take off? More polution there than 100 cars running for an hour, but you do not see anyone trying to get people to stop flying! It`s all just a crock and depends how you want to look at it!! Enjoy your life and quite worrying about something you cannot change!!! Ya I know, It`s people like me that are poluting the world!!!

 

[XS650]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dan4510:
Here's three:
UCLA historian Lynn White, Jr
Dr Stephen Schneider

---

You seem to know where the three said that we were headed for an ice age and are now saying we are headed for global warming. Rather than giving us a reading list, please cut to the chase.

Please quote what each of them specificlly said when they made both statements and cite where each of them made both statements.

 

[Dan4510]

quote:

---

Originally posted by XS650:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dan4510:
Here's three:
UCLA historian Lynn White, Jr
Dr Stephen Schneider

---

You seem to know where the three said that we were headed for an ice age and are now saying we are headed for global warming. Rather than giving us a reading list, please cut to the chase.

Please quote what each of them specificlly said when they made both statements and cite where each of them made both statements.

---

You just demonstrated that you did not check out all the links provided for that express purpose.

Dan

 

[XS650]

You seem to know where the three said that we were headed for an ice age and are now saying we are headed for global warming. Rather than giving us a reading list, please cut to the chase.

Please quote what each of them specificlly said when they made both statements and cite where each of them made both statements.

quote:

---

You just demonstrated that you did not check out all the links provided for that express purpose.

Dan

---

I scanned the articles and did not see which three scientists had changed their views. If you actually knew of three who had, it would be easy for you to list their names and quote them along with a cite for the quote.

If you actually have their names and a direct reference as opposed to a reading list, please post that information. Until you do, it is reasonable to assume you are don't know.

I made it easy for you, there has to be at least three scientists who have gained enough knowledge to have changed their views in the past few decades. If you manage to find them, which opinion do you expect to be the more valid one? The one they formed 30 years ago, or the one they formed with 30 more years experiance and a greater knowledge of the environment?

[ January 14, 2004, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: XS650 ]

 

[Dan4510]

quote:

---

Originally posted by XS650:
You seem to know where the three said that we were headed for an ice age and are now saying we are headed for global warming. Rather than giving us a reading list, please cut to the chase.

Please quote what each of them specificlly said when they made both statements and cite where each of them made both statements.

quote:

---

You just demonstrated that you did not check out all the links provided for that express purpose.

Dan

---

I scanned the articles and did not see which three scientists had changed their views. If you actually knew of three who had, it would be easy for you to list their names and quote them along with a cite for the quote.

If you actually have their names and a direct reference as opposed to a reading list, please post that information. Until you do, it is reasonable to assume you are don't know.

I made it easy for you, there has to be at least three scientists who have gained enough knowledge to have changed their views in the past few decades. If you manage to find them, which opinion do you expect to be the more valid one? The one they formed 30 years ago, or the one they formed with 30 more years experiance and a greater knowledge of the environment?

---

Several things prevent me from "cutting to the chase'" so to speak.

First, you do not seem to understand that global warming is not cut and dried, and is only theory. It is extremely complex and thus does not lend itself easily to simplistic modes of inquiry such as those used to support global warming or global climate change or whatever next buzzword will be used.

Second, you are the one asserting that three scientists did not change. YOU are the one that needs to back up your statement, not me. I provided an alternative way of looking at the problem that goes beyond elementary, bias ridden rhetoric. Furthermore, the question of validity of global warming was examined by one of the leading researchers in the field of climate studies. If that is not a sufficient, then, pray tell, what is?

Third, notable "scientists" such as Carl Sagan and others with noted interests in left wing politics argued for sweeping policy changes that would have put America's economic growth at a standstill. The process would result in the further erosion of fundamental freedoms and property rights.

Fourth, everthing I have read points to a basic lack of understanding by you and most people as to the use of the scientific method in studying "global warming." There are basic principles of research design and mathematics (statistical methodolgy) that proponents of the ideology fail to adhere to. By definition, this type of research is not SCIENCE. It is the opposite of science, looking for data to support one's preconieved notions.

Last, I suggest you read Francis Bacon's writings on the scientific method, as well as the Scottish take on empiricism. You might want to throw in some readings on August Compte also.

Since I doubt you are familiar with any of these I am including some webpages that deal with the aforementioned subjects in an elementary fashion so that you can readily reference and understand them.

Dan

http://web.uvic.ca/shakespeare/Library/SLTnoframes/ideas/bacon.html

http://www.batesville.k12.in.us/physics/PhyNet/AboutScience/Inductive.html

http://www.kiara-rankin.com/theorists/19th.htm

http://cyberspacei.com/jesusi/inlight/philosophy/western/Empiricism.htm

 

[Shannow]

Dan,
the problem with this "experiment" is that by the time we have proven (or disproven) the hypothesis, it's too late.

On the other hand, we can treat it like doctor's advice to change eating and excercise habits. He can't state categorically that you are headed for heart disease/cancer whatever, but the message makes sense.

If we respond to the possibility of global warming, we ALL benefit, by having our FINITE reserves of fossil fuels extended.

Heck, some countries are replacing old 30% efficient power plants with new 50% efficient plants, stimulating their economies and creating employment rather than bleating about lost jobs and industry shutting down.

 

[XS650]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jsharp:
So far what I've see tells me the whole global warming scare is junk science. Some of the same people who were predicting a new ice age in the 70's are now the biggest proponents of global warming.

---

Still waiting for the name of three scientists that reversed their position. It should be easy to come up with three. People can learn alot in 30 years.

You did say "the same people who were predicting a new ice age in the 70's are now the biggest proponants of global warming"

Cites please.

 

[sciroccoGTX16V]

As Putin said when refusing to sign the Kyoto agreement : "if global warming means Siberia will be warmer , i am all for it"

 

[jsharp]

quote:

---

Originally posted by XS650:

quote:

---

Originally posted by jsharp:
So far what I've see tells me the whole global warming scare is junk science. Some of the same people who were predicting a new ice age in the 70's are now the biggest proponents of global warming.

---

Still waiting for the name of three scientists that reversed their position. It should be easy to come up with three. People can learn alot in 30 years.

You did say "the same people who were predicting a new ice age in the 70's are now the biggest proponants of global warming"

Cites please.

---

I could repost Dans links if you like, but what would be the point? I also mentioned Carl Sagan as a notable quack in this area but not surprisingly, not everything he has written is on the internet.

I've have read the exact statement I made here - http://www.junkscience.com along with names and dates but the seach function there is for all intents and purposes broken given the phrase "global warming" appears in the header of almost every page.

So I'll concede your point that if it's not on the internet and linkable it doesn't exist, even if I see it with my own eyes and hear it with my own ears.

You are welcome to believe what you want...

edit: here's one just for fun - http://www.georgiapolitics.com/hotair.htm

Some notable headlines from the 70's - In the 1970s headlines warned "Earth may be headed for another ice age" (The New York Times) with "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation" and "a full-blown 10,000-year ice age" (Science magazine). "Brace Yourself for Another Ice Age" (Science Digest), because there were "ominous signs" that "the Earth's climate seems to be cooling down," and "meteorologists are almost unanimous" that "the trend will reduce agricultural productivity" (Newsweek). "Glaciers had "begun to advance" and armadillos were retreating south from Nebraska (The Christian Science Monitor).

I'm unable to find the originals on the internet however since these predate it by a number of years...

[ January 14, 2004, 05:49 PM: Message edited by: jsharp ]

 

[XS650]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jsharp:
I could repost Dans links if you like, but what would be the point? I also mentioned Carl Sagan as a notable quack in this area but not surprisingly, not everything he has written is on the internet

---

Any warming Sagan is feeling isn't global.

I agree there is no point in reposting Dan's links unless the answer to my question is in them. I belive the links he posted were the result of a misunderstanding of my question or a smoke screen.

 

[Dan4510]

quote:

---

Originally posted by XS650:

quote:

---

Originally posted by jsharp:
I could repost Dans links if you like, but what would be the point? I also mentioned Carl Sagan as a notable quack in this area but not surprisingly, not everything he has written is on the internet

---

Any warming Sagan is feeling isn't global.

I agree there is no point in reposting Dan's links unless the answer to my question is in them. I belive the links he posted were the result of a misunderstanding of my question or a smoke screen.

---

Please define smoke screen, it seems that after your question has been answered several times you fail to be satisfied. You beg for cites when they are before you.

This is trolling at its best. I have a strong urge to lock this thread.

Dan

 

[XS650]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dan4510:
Please define smoke screen,

---

smoke screen or smoke·screen (smkskrn)
n. A large quantity of words or information offered in response to a question that does not answer the question, but rather talks around the issue with the speaker or author attempting to pass it off as an answer.

quote:

---

it seems that after your question has been answered several times you fail to be satisfied. You beg for cites when they are before you.

This is trolling at its best. I have a strong urge to lock this thread.

Dan

---

The question has not been answered once. It was a request to name three scientists that have changed their position from one of an on coming ice age to once of global warming.

Providing a reading list that does not answer the question is not answering the question.

If the answer to my question is in the laundry list of URLs you provided, please provide the names of the three scientists and show us where they said what you say they said in the URLs you provided. Otherwise, you might as well admit you were blowing smoke and lock the thread.

 

[Dan4510]

Well, I guess I was blowing smoke.

I am for debating all subjects, but after the SUV thread I have no tolerance for trolling.

Thread is now locked.

Dan

[ January 14, 2004, 10:35 PM: Message edited by: Dan4510 ]