Why the confusion about Global Warming

[SMM]

I became environmentally aware during the mid 70's, became an activist by 1980. Initially I was focused on river related issues. However, there becomes a time when you begin to see the overall interaction of everything we call earth.

'Back in the day', it was easy enough to slime us by calling us 'environmentalists'. But, as time went by, the name was diluted because to many people had become aware of the many issues there were. So, to separate us, we became known as environmental extremists. It is always important to demean your foe by using name calling.

I did not mind. I knew the battle for the planet would eventually be won. The truth was on our side, and there was no personal gain we were taking. Those aligned against the earth were those wanting to make a profit from it. Through education, we had made a great deal of headway. Then Bush came to power. His administration began to roll-back over two decades of work.

Today, there is overwhelming evidence of how the administration, by way of the political appointee hacks, have engaged in a process, which always aims to focus doubt on science. This leads many Americans to adopt a position, "well that is just their opinion". Well, they are not opinions, they are facts.

Attached is a Report (http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1653) from the Congress. They held two different investigative committees about this. Those of you who actually care whether your government is lying to you, should find this very interesting. Much of it has never been made public.



The evidence before the Committee leads to one inescapable conclusion: the Bush Administration has engaged in a systematic effort to manipulate climate change science and mislead policymakers and the public about the dangers of global warming.

[mactastic]

It ain't just in the climate change arena that they've been supression science in the name of Republican ideology...

[ucfgrad93]

Apparently, Bush isn't alone (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316566,00.html). Its another vast right-wing conspiracy!

[hulugu]

Apparently, Bush isn't alone (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316566,00.html). Its another vast right-wing conspiracy!

You're confusing two separate issues.

[MBHockey]

It's really disgusting how much FUD has gotten thrown around which, unfortunately, but effectively "repositions global warming as theory instead of fact" (as Al Gore puts it).

An overwhelming percentage of scientists agree with the "theory", but others (for their own selfish reasons) have managed to create a terrific atmosphere of doubt surrounding the issue. Further...it's easy to doubt it, because if you doubt it, it gives you an excuse to be lazy and do nothing.

[SMM]

Apparently, Bush isn't alone (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316566,00.html). Its another vast right-wing conspiracy!

No, there is really only one. It has gone on for a couple decades, and has been championed by those who's personal greed extends beyond their sense of citizenship. These are attributes of authoritarians, which are almost always conservatives. So, that is why is usually appears to be a case of a right-wing conspiracy. The truth is out there for anyone who wants to know it. What I find is, most of those who do not accept it, are praying to God they are right. But, secretly, they are hoping to make make theirs, and it is still not too late.

[ucfgrad93]

The truth is out there for anyone who wants to know it.

Yep, we just need to keep looking on Crooks and Liars. ;)

More evidence of the conspiracy......http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3982079

Max Mayfield: 'No One Forced Me to Say Anything'

[Kashchei]

The simple answer to your question: the rise of right-wing talk radio. Imagine how much different things would be if Rush Limbaugh had gone to jail (as anyone else would have) when busted for Oxycontin shopping. Sure, others would take his place, but he seems to be the alpha dog among the right-wing commentators and arguably has the most rabid followers. They will forgive him of seemingly anything without catching the inherent contradiction and then do exactly as he says (not as he does).

I may be overly pessimistic--I'd love to be proven wrong here--but I don't think there will be a solution to the current political divisions until right-wing talk radio is pulled from the airwaves.

[SMM]

Yep, we just need to keep looking on Crooks and Liars. ;)

More evidence of the conspiracy......http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3982079

I guess I am totally missing your Crooks and Liars Point.

[ucfgrad93]

I may be overly pessimistic--I'd love to be proven wrong here--but I don't think there will be a solution to the current political divisions until right-wing talk radio is pulled from the airwaves.

Nice to know that you support that whole freedom of speech thing.........:rolleyes:

[Kashchei]

Nice to know that you support that whole freedom of speech thing.........:rolleyes:

Do I detect a dittohead?

[Naimfan]

I think it's more willful ignorance on the part of many and of an uncertainty as to what can be done--and even if doing anything will have any effect.

The reason the Shrub and company willfully ignore the problem is that it will cost their constituents a LOT of money--and that's as far as they look, seemingly ignoring any impact to the planet that does not affect us RIGHT NOW.

[ucfgrad93]

I guess I am totally missing your Crooks and Liars Point.

You said that the truth is out there for anyone who wants to know. It was just a jab at you since you seem to post a lot of stories from that site here, and that I would find the truth on Crooks and Liars. All in fun.:D

[ucfgrad93]

Do I detect a dittohead?

Do I detect someone who wants to take away freedom of speech?

[Nukemkb]

LOL! (the sky is falling, OMG! the sky is falling!). :p:p:p
wait a moment - where's the smilie for 'getting popcorn'?

[Prof.]

People think that what the gov't and its agencies (*cough*NASA*cough*) say, must be true. But the truth is... The United States government is lying to its people and denying the truth. The climate crisis is real and any deniers need to go home and !@#% themselves.:mad:

I swear, when I get enough money, I'm moving to the UK and leaving this corrupt government. :mad:

[Nukemkb]

ROTFLMAO! (move already!)

Because people think that what the gov't and its agencies (*cough*NASA*cough*) say, must be true. But the truth is... The United States government is lying to its people and denying the truth. The climate crisis is real and any deniers need to go home and !@#% themselves.:mad:

I swear, when I get enough money, I'm moving to the UK and leaving this corrupt government. :mad:

[obeygiant]

Do I detect a dittohead?

Hey I wouldn't have pegged you as Slayer fan. :)


But seriously, "pulled" from the airwaves? Come on.

[xUKHCx]

The climate crisis is real and any deniers need to go home and !@#% themselves.:mad:

Wow way to forego the whole scientific process

I swear, when I get enough money, I'm moving to the UK and leaving this corrupt government. :mad:

The UK government is becoming very overbearing.

[mactastic]

I may be overly pessimistic--I'd love to be proven wrong here--but I don't think there will be a solution to the current political divisions until right-wing talk radio is pulled from the airwaves.
Stop and think for one second about how well that would work. Suddenly they'd have a rational reason to feel persecuted.

The surest way to strengthen right wingnuttery would be to try to ban it from the radio. Can you imagine the cries of "the liberals are out to get us"?

And the thing is, they'd be right.

[Prof.]

ROTFLMAO! (move already!)

You don't think our gov't is corrupt?

[ucfgrad93]

The climate crisis is real and any deniers need to go home and !@#% themselves.:mad:

Now there is a constructive argument if I've ever heard one.

[Nukemkb]

Son, all politicians are corrupt. ALL! :(

You don't think our gov't is corrupt?

[Kashchei]

Do I detect someone who wants to take away freedom of speech?

Your defensiveness answered my question.

The FCC regulates political speech and insists on equality of time between the two parties. There is no such things currently, although I'm sure you'll debate this point. I'm not talking about limiting anyone's free speech, just abiding by the FCC regulations.

This is one area where the right-wing mantra "the market takes care of everything" is only applicable if you happen to be a right-winger, where unfairness isn't considered a vice but a virtue.

[zakee00]

Now there is a constructive argument if I've ever heard one.

haha.

Yeah I believe that the government isn't paying enough attention to climate change and the environment in general.

There's no money in it.

[Prof.]

Now there is a constructive argument if I've ever heard one.
We would solve the climate crisis a lot faster if the naysayers crawled in a hole and died.:mad:

[mactastic]

We would solve the climate crisis a lot faster if the naysayers crawled in a hole and died.:mad:
Pissy little mood you're in tonight, isn't it?

[Nukemkb]

Sorry that you feel that way. I blame it on a liberal upbringing. Hate in your heart is such a sad thing :p

We would solve the climate crisis a lot faster if the naysayers crawled in a hole and died.:mad:

[xUKHCx]

We would solve the climate crisis a lot faster if the naysayers crawled in a hole and died.:mad:

Really showing some immaturity here.

[Prof.]

Pissy little mood you're in tonight, isn't it?

No, I just get really pissed when ppl act like they know things when in reality they don't.

[ucfgrad93]

We would solve the climate crisis a lot faster if the naysayers crawled in a hole and died.:mad:

An even better argument! Keep 'em coming, I'm sure you will be much more effective than Al Gore.

[Kashchei]

Suddenly they'd have a rational reason to feel persecuted.

They feel persecuted anyone; they manufacture oppression where none exists. Ironically, this is part of the appeal for the GOP. Read my later post, the one about abiding by the FCC regulation concerning equal time for both political parties. If we followed this rule, I'd be perfectly happy.

[Nukemkb]

HOLD on folks, gotta get the cat out of my lap so I can nuke some more popcorn...:D

[Prof.]

Really showing some immaturity here.
it's true.

[Prof.]

An even better argument! Keep 'em coming, I'm sure you will be much more effective than Al Gore.

You're being sarcastic, aren't you?

[xUKHCx]

No, I just get really pissed when ppl act like they know things when in reality they don't.

Case in point:

No, I just get really pissed when ppl act like they know things when in reality they don't.

Oh wait i quoted you twice, oh that was on purpose.:rolleyes:

Edit:
it's true.


So you admit you are being immature.

[ucfgrad93]

You're being sarcastic, aren't you?

He shoots, he scores! Congratulations, you got it on the first try.

[mactastic]

They feel persecuted anyone; they manufacture oppression where none exists. Ironically, this is part of the appeal for the GOP. Read my later post, the one about abiding by the FCC regulation concerning equal time for both political parties. If we followed this rule, I'd be perfectly happy.
True enough; but if you'll note, I said "rational reason".

Hell, I'd support them if a liberal group tried to get them banned from the air for no reason other than being conservative.

[Prof.]

Case in point:



Oh wait i quoted you twice, oh that was on purpose.:rolleyes:

Edit:



So you admit you are being immature.

No, I'm saying that we WOULD solve the problem if we didn't have any naysayers.

[mactastic]

No, I just get really pissed when ppl act like they know things when in reality they don't.
Well, no matter how you feel, please refrain from those types of attacks in your posts.

[Nukemkb]

Gasp! violence? :eek:
No, I'm saying that we WOULD solve the problem if we didn't have any naysayers.

[hulugu]

True enough; but if you'll note, I said "rational reason".

Hell, I'd support them if a liberal group tried to get them banned from the air for no reason other than being conservative.

Yep, and the irony would be the ACLU would probably come to their defense. And, I'd have to support them, but I'd feel dirty.

[xUKHCx]

No, I'm saying that we WOULD solve the problem if we didn't have any naysayers.

Actually if you look at the post again and what you quoted



94160

[Prof.]

Okay, I get it! You guys think I am crazy or what every you're thinking, I don't care.

Sometimes... anger is a necessary evil.

[obeygiant]

The FCC regulates political speech and insists on equality of time between the two parties. There is no such things currently, although I'm sure you'll debate this point. I'm not talking about limiting anyone's free speech, just abiding by the FCC regulations.


Wasn't the fairness doctrine withdrawn by the FCC? It was given up because it was "chilling" free speech.

[Prof.]

Well, no matter how you feel, please refrain from those types of attacks in your posts.

Okay, I'm sorry.:o

[Kashchei]

True enough; but if you'll note, I said "rational reason".

Hell, I'd support them if a liberal group tried to get them banned from the air for no reason other than being conservative.

I'm with you on your last point. I jumped ahead one step in my argument earlier: in order to achieve air-time equity, it would be much easier to pull loads of right-wing flotsam and jetsam from the airwaves rather than suddenly produce enough liberal radio as a counter balance.

[ucfgrad93]

Okay, I get it! You guys think I am crazy or what every you're thinking, I don't care.

Sometimes... anger is a necessary evil.

True, but when used like you did, it just makes you look immature, juvenile, etc., and doesn't really help your cause.

[Nukemkb]

Sorry folks, my sensitive nature is too bruised with all this violence being implied. Gotta go. Cat says 'bye too! ;)

[ucfgrad93]

...suddenly produce enough liberal radio as a counter balance.

Yep, didn't work too well when they came up with Air America.

[Prof.]

Sorry guys and gals. I just get really worked up when it comes to the climate crises. I'll tone it down.

Forgive me?:o

[mactastic]

Yep, didn't work too well when they came up with Air America.
I wonder if Air America loses more or less money than the Moonie Times...

[obeygiant]

Forgive me?:o

certainly.

What's "air america" anyway? An Airline?

[xUKHCx]

Sometimes... anger is a necessary evil.

This is never the case.

Personal emotions like this and statements like yours serve no purpose in scientific debate and only prove to belittle your own arguments.

[SMM]

You said that the truth is out there for anyone who wants to know. It was just a jab at you since you seem to post a lot of stories from that site here, and that I would find the truth on Crooks and Liars. All in fun.:D

I linked directly to the Congressional Committee site, due to recent criticism for linking to C & L. I still do not understand that anyway. I can only surmise it is because the complainer(s) do not actually read what is there. C & L does not have a great deal of original material posted, although it is certainly liberal biased and makes some comment on stories. Yet, the stories I link to are from Congress, Washington Post, NY Times, Huffington, all of the Major national, and international news networks and top op-ed columnists from around the world.

If you are a right-winger (FOX news ilk), you will not like it there. But, you also will not like what I write here. :p I have pretty strong opinions, so I do not expect to be universally admired for them.

[ucfgrad93]

certainly.

What's "air america" anyway? An Airline?

Are you serious? It is liberal talk radio. www.airamerica.com

[Kashchei]

Wasn't the fairness doctrine withdrawn by the FCC? It was given up because it was "chilling" free speech.

You are correct; most of the doctrine was overturned during the Reagan years, and the political balance in broadcasting was overturned in 2000. In light of what has happened in the ensuing years, I don't think it can be argued that the fairness doctrine had a chilling effect on free speech; in fact, the reverse seems to be true. Thanks for the correction nonetheless.

P.S. I don't understand the slayer reference!?!

[ucfgrad93]

If you are a right-winger (FOX news ilk), you will not like it there. But, you also will not like what I write here. :p I have pretty strong opinions, so I do not expect to be universally admired for them.

No problem, like I said, just a jest.

[Prof.]

This is never the case.

Personal emotions like this and statements like yours serve no purpose in scientific debate and only prove to belittle your own arguments.

I'm sorry. I just find it unbelievable that our gov't is not doing anything to solve a problem so huge, that it has the capability to kill every man, woman and child on this planet. How do they sleep at night, I don't know.

[mactastic]

This is never the case.

Personal emotions like this and statements like yours serve no purpose in scientific debate and only prove to belittle your own arguments.
It happens. We've had righties go completely ballistic over flag burning or other such topics.

Only difference is I have yet to see a fellow righty try to tone one of their own down...

[obeygiant]

Are you serious? It is liberal talk radio. www.airamerica.com

LOL. that was a joke. :D

Only difference is I have yet to see a fellow righty try to tone one of their own down...

never seen a lefty do that either.

[ucfgrad93]

I'm sorry. I just find it unbelievable that our gov't is not doing anything to solve a problem so huge, that it has the capability to kill every man, woman and child on this planet. How do they sleep at night, I don't know.

Ok, our country has about 300 million people out of 6 billion on the planet. Do you really think we can stop it ourselves? Could more be done, of course. But we can't do it alone, and good luck convincing the Chinese.

[Naimfan]

Ok, our country has about 300 million people out of 6 billion on the planet. Do you really think we can stop it ourselves? Could more be done, of course. But we can't do it alone, and good luck convincing the Chinese.

Well, we have roughly 5% of the population and consume, IIRC, about 25% of the energy used annually. So there is PLENTY the US could (and should) be doing.

[ucfgrad93]

LOL. that was a joke. :D

I thought so, but wanted to be sure.

[xUKHCx]

Ok, our country has about 300 million people out of 6 billion on the planet. Do you really think we can stop it ourselves? Could more be done, of course. But we can't do it alone, and good luck convincing the Chinese.

Why blame the Chinese on a per person basis the UK is about 2.5 times as bad in regards to C02 emissions.

[mactastic]

Ok, our country has about 300 million people out of 6 billion on the planet. Do you really think we can stop it ourselves? Could more be done, of course. But we can't do it alone, and good luck convincing the Chinese.
Economic realities will pressure them soon enough. Green doesn't just mean enviornmental, it's getting pretty close to the point where green makes economic sense.

[ucfgrad93]

Well, we have roughly 5% of the population and consume, IIRC, about 25% of the energy used annually. So there is PLENTY the US could (and should) be doing.

That just leaves 75% of the energy users to bring on board. Agreed that we should be doing more, but it is not our problem alone.

[Prof.]

Just to clarify things...

I do believe global warming is real and that it is the greatest threat of the 21st century. I am not a Republican or a Democrat; I vote for the person who I think will do a good job as president.

[mactastic]

never seen a lefty do that either.
Were you not just watching me and Prof? :confused:

And it ain't the first time I've taken on another liberal for making specious arguments.

Actually, I forgot imac/cheese's strrrrrrrrrrrrretch comment to Swarmlord when he tried to claim that it's ok to destroy tapes of interrogations because the "originals" still existed in the minds of some.

That's pretty close.

[Naimfan]

That just leaves 75% of the energy users to bring on board. Agreed that we should be doing more, but it is not our problem alone.

True on the 75% part, and on it not being our problem alone, but the US is, for better or worse, in a unique position to affect things for the better.

[ucfgrad93]

Why blame the Chinese on a per person basis the UK is about 2.5 times as bad in regards to C02 emissions.

Because China has almost 22 times the population of the UK. So even if the British people are spewing 2.5 times the CO2 as the Chinese, the Chinese are putting out way more than the British.

60,776,238 (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/uk.html) UK population July 2007.

1,321,851,888 (http://wikitravel.org/en/China) China population July 2007

[xUKHCx]

Because China has almost 22 times the population of the UK. So even if the British people are spewing 2.5 times the CO2 as the Chinese, the Chinese are putting out way more than the British.

60,776,238 (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/uk.html) UK population July 2007.

1,321,851,888 (http://wikitravel.org/en/China) China population July 2007


While that may be true we can't blame them as it is clear we are worse offenders and it would be a case of the pot calling the kettle.

[Swarmlord]

I'm sorry. I just find it unbelievable that our gov't is not doing anything to solve a problem so huge, that it has the capability to kill every man, woman and child on this planet. How do they sleep at night, I don't know.

I guess we can watch what the two most populous nations do if it's so darned important.

[Prof.]

I guess we can watch what the two most populous nations do if it's so darned important.

They better act fast; we don't have that much time left.

[Swarmlord]

They better act fast; we don't have that much time left.

Only a couple million years give or take an epoch.

[Prof.]

Only a couple million years give or take an epoch.

The effects of Global Warming will be irreparable in fifty years time.

[xUKHCx]

They better act fast; we don't have that much time left.

Just curious as to where you are getting your knowledge about global warming from.

[Prof.]

Just curious as to where you are getting your knowledge about global warming from.

Books, my former science professors, internet (internet is not that reliable tho.)

Are you going to bash me now?

[Swarmlord]

The effects of Global Warming will be irreparable in fifty years time.

Good. We should all live long enough to see that disproved then.

At least I'll have the pleasure of seeing some of my least favorite spots in the world go from damned hot to uninhabitable. Hope the Arabs are saving up some oil to power their airconditioners.

[hulugu]

That just leaves 75% of the energy users to bring on board. Agreed that we should be doing more, but it is not our problem alone.

We can lead or we can follow, and if given the choice there are far more advantages to being the leaders in this. We can reap huge economic benefits by investing in the green technologies the rest of the world will want, and thus cargo-container of toys and laptops from Shenzhen can be returned with solar panels and Tesla EVs.

If the world's hyper-power can work on this problem, then what's the point?

[xUKHCx]

Books, my former science professors, internet (internet is not that reliable tho.)

Are you going to bash me now?

Just trying to understand where you are getting these facts from and why you are 100% convinced of them.

Internet is reliable if you look in the right places

Professors teach in high school(?). In my experience of education especially at that level the scientific rigor used to objectively look at the case in point is not always applied.

Generally any book will be out of date by the time you read it.

Not bashing you though I half expected you to come back with An Inconvenient truth which I would have taken you to town with.

Its good that you are looking into this but I suggest you actively try and search for both sides of the argument to ty and take an objective view of the situation and try and take personal emotions out of the equation after all if you come to a debate with a well rounded view you will come across much more knowledgeable and people will be more willing to listen to you rather than your previous statements about people crawling into a whole and dying.

[Prof.]

Just trying to understand where you are getting these facts from and why you are 100% convinced of them.

Internet is reliable if you look in the right places

Professors teach in high school(?). In my experience of education especially at that level the scientific rigor used to objectively look at the case in point is not always applied.

Generally any book will be out of date by the time you read it.

Not bashing you though I half expected you to come back with An Inconvenient truth which I would have taken you to town with.

Its good that you are looking into this but I suggest you actively try and search for both sides of the argument to ty and take an objective view of the situation and try and take personal emotions out of the equation after all if you come to a debate with a well rounded view you will come across much more knowledgeable and people will be more willing to listen to you rather than your previous statements about people crawling into a whole and dying.
You're right, you are absolutely right.

I have read both sides of the story and I chosen to believe that global warming is real and that we must do anything and everything in our power stop it. And yes, they were my high school teachers. But, I talked to them before class where their opinions wouldn't be forced on the other students.

[SMM]

Because China has almost 22 times the population of the UK. So even if the British people are spewing 2.5 times the CO2 as the Chinese, the Chinese are putting out way more than the British.

60,776,238 (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/uk.html) UK population July 2007.

1,321,851,888 (http://wikitravel.org/en/China) China population July 2007




Chinas Three Gorges Dam:

Power production

Total generating capacity


The Three Gorges Dam is the world’s largest hydro-electric power station by total capacity, which will be 22,500 MW. It will have 34 generators in total. 32 of them are main generators, each with a capacity of 700 MW; and the other two are plant power generators to power other 14 generators, each with capacity of 50 MW. Fourteen are installed in the north side of the dam, twelve in the south side and the remaining six in the underground power plant in the mountain south of the dam. After completion, the expected annual electricity generation would be about 84.7 TWh, which could support four cities the size of Los Angeles.

Pollutant emission reduction

According to The National Development and Reform Commission of China, the average consumption of coal to produce one kWh of electricity in China is 366 grams (2006).[4] Therefore, the Three Gorges Dam will potentially reduce the coal consumption by 31 million tons per year, cutting the emission of 100 million tons of greenhouse gas,[5] millions of tons of dust, 1 million tons of sulfur dioxide, 370 thousand tons of nitric oxide, 10 thousand tons of carbon monoxide and a significant amount of mercury into the atmosphere.[6]



China has the worst environmental crisis in the world. They realized this long ago, and are doing the most about it. This is just one example. But, if you do a little research, you will find they are fighting this war on many fronts, starting with population control.

[Iscariot]

All of you who believe you are responsible for global warming are but fools incapable of seeing what is before you. Or whom. I will not let you claim credit any longer.

I have swept the vastest oceans and the darkest jungles. I have crumbled city, stone and civilization under my heel. Mine is power and time and age, bone and ice and fire. I have grasped the gem of Cyttorak and drank the blood sacrifice. I have seen your lords and prophets and kings and I have spread them at my feet. I am the darkness and the all enveloping, fed by Kandarian demons of old and the strength of Cthulu, I am entwained in the very fabric of your reality and my fingers steer it's death-touch. I am demon risen from the ashen remains of your twisted legacy, born of tooth and nail and driven by hate and malice.

I will see this world in my grasp or watch it burn to ashes around me. Fear my terrifying carbon nightmare.

[SMM]

All of you who believe you are responsible for global warming are but fools incapable of seeing what is before you. Or whom. I will not let you claim credit any longer.

I have swept the vastest oceans and the darkest jungles. I have crumbled city, stone and civilization under my heel. Mine is power and time and age, bone and ice and fire. I have grasped the gem of Cyttorak and drank the blood sacrifice. I have seen your lords and prophets and kings and I have spread them at my feet. I am the darkness and the all enveloping, fed by Kandarian demons of old and the strength of Cthulu, I am entwained in the very fabric of your reality and my fingers steer it's death-touch. I am demon risen from the ashen remains of your twisted legacy, born of tooth and nail and driven by hate and malice.

I will see this world in my grasp or watch it burn to ashes around me. Fear my terrifying carbon nightmare.

Do you have a timeframe on this? I have a large wine/rare old Scotch collection. I sure do not want to leave the best bottles to be destroyed. I promise not to tell anyone.

[Iscariot]

Do you have a timeframe on this? I have a large wine/rare old Scotch collection. I sure do not want to leave the best bottles to be destroyed. I promise not to tell anyone.

Oh, you know, about the same as before. Flash floods in 2020, 5% increase in diarrhea diseases in 2030, Irreversable damage by 2050, raised ocean levels by 2 feet in 2100, and so forth. Can't rush my dark, dark work.

[hulugu]

Do you have a timeframe on this? I have a large wine/rare old Scotch collection. I sure do not want to leave the best bottles to be destroyed. I promise not to tell anyone.

I think you have to give it as an offering to Cthulhu, and even then there's no guarantees.

[hulugu]

... I am demon risen from the ashen remains of your twisted legacy, born of tooth and nail and driven by hate and malice....

Who is Dick Cheney for 500.00 Alex. ;)

[Naimfan]

Do you have a timeframe on this? I have a large wine/rare old Scotch collection. I sure do not want to leave the best bottles to be destroyed. I promise not to tell anyone.

Oh, come on! Clearly he'd tell if you promise to share!

[Iscariot]

Oh, come on! Clearly he'd tell if you promise to share!

Your dark lord, master of the fires of hell, champion of the night, scourge of a thousand tentacles, shade of fury and wrath, commander of legions, spectre of destruction and hate and contempt, ripper, terror, slasher, gouger...! prefers gin.

edit:While my narratives are always original, the last four words are from the Beowulf movie. While the movie itself was dull, I (obviously) loved the hell out of his over-the-top character.

[solvs]

More evidence of the conspiracy......http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3982079
How does one person saying he wasn't coerced negate all of those who we know were?

Nice to know that you support that whole freedom of speech thing.........:rolleyes:
I don't support pulling them off the air, but they should be held accountable for what they say. They have rights, but they also have a responsibility. Fox news once won the right to outright lie, which I do disagree with, but that should tell you something about trusting them. Rush himself even calls himself an entertainer, but he presents himself as a newsman and political commentator and should be held to the same standards. At least Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert's audiences know they're making stuff up, and I still trust them more.

As someone who actually occasionally watched and listened to Rush during the Clinton days, and am utterly disappointed that he defends when Bush does something (even worse things most of the time) that he derided Clinton for.

LOL! (the sky is falling, OMG! the sky is falling!). :p:p:p
That was helpful to the conversation. I suppose you don't think Global Climate Change is a problem, or even real, and that we're all just being hysterical. Despite all legitimate evidence to the contrary. But yes, God forbid we even study the issue or try to do something about it. If we're wrong, no harm done and maybe even some economic advantages, plus less dependence on foreign oil. If we're right, and we do nothing, we're screwed. You may be ok with that. Some of us aren't.

ROTFLMAO! (move already!)
Nice. I see posters deriding Prof, and rightly so, even if OG doesn't see it, but I don't see how your posts are any better. Less so actually, because you're not really giving anything to the conversation now are you? Trolling is not appreciated here.

Were you not just watching me and Prof? :confused:
Easier to ignore you and try to make a point about hypocrisy that isn't there.

And it ain't the first time I've taken on another liberal for making specious arguments.
As have others, myself included, but he has nothing else, so that makes a good distraction.

Actually, I forgot imac/cheese's strrrrrrrrrrrrretch comment to Swarmlord when he tried to claim that it's ok to destroy tapes of interrogations because the "originals" still existed in the minds of some.

That's pretty close.
I don't know. i/c does agree with us an awful lot. He and DHM don't count according to SL, so I guess that doesn't count.

At least I'll have the pleasure of seeing some of my least favorite spots in the world go from damned hot to uninhabitable. Hope the Arabs are saving up some oil to power their airconditioners.
I was wondering what type of post you'd make in this thread that has nothing to do with anything. I see it's a racist one. Funny, I was expecting something about how all the evidence isn't in, even though it is, but since that would have been on topic I guess that would have been asking too much.

Its good that you are looking into this but I suggest you actively try and search for both sides of the argument
There really aren't 2 sides to this. Climate change is real, even the part about humans making it worse isn't an argument anymore. There is some debate about just how much or little, but most of it suggests things are getting pretty bad and that isn't changing. I'm not basing this on emotion, I didn't actually used to care, but everything I've seen on the subject from those who have little if anything to gain has shown it to be a problem man is contributing to. And that there are ways to lessen it, some even creating jobs and making things better for us all, but the current administration and those like them have turned it into a question when there really isn't one.

[Nukemkb]

I disagree with you. Global warming is overblown by the liberals in an attempt to sway your vote. Politicians are all corrupt and will sink to any depths to 'capture' your vote. :)

[.Andy]

I disagree with you. Global warming is overblown by the liberals in an attempt to sway your vote. Politicians are all corrupt and will sink to any depths to 'capture' your vote. :)
The smiley doesn't make your post any less of a troll.

[xUKHCx]

There really aren't 2 sides to this. Climate change is real, even the part about humans making it worse isn't an argument anymore. There is some debate about just how much or little, but most of it suggests things are getting pretty bad and that isn't changing. I'm not basing this on emotion, I didn't actually used to care, but everything I've seen on the subject from those who have little if anything to gain has shown it to be a problem man is contributing to. And that there are ways to lessen it, some even creating jobs and making things better for us all, but the current administration and those like them have turned it into a question when there really isn't one.

I don't know what you have been reading and surely you can't claim to have read/be aware of everything so you can not make such a statement. There are two sides to this the debate still continues.

[Nukemkb]

The smiley doesn't make your post any less of a troll.

Just trying to make the impact of someone having a different opinion to be NOT hostile. I truly do not want (1) to hurt anyones feelings and (2)I do want to express my own.
It does not hurt my feelings that you feel someone with a different opinion just HAS to be a troll! I would NEVER say that of you and your opinion! all spoken IMHO> (but I still disagree with this latest 'cause celeb')

[obeygiant]

The smiley doesn't make your post any less of a troll.

I'm sorry, but that post does not qualify as a troll.

[.Andy]

Just trying to make the impact of someone having a different opinion to be NOT hostile. I truly do not want (1) to hurt anyones feelings and (2)I do want to express my own.
It does not hurt my feelings that you feel someone with a different opinion just HAS to be a troll! I would NEVER say that of you and your opinion!
Unfounded LIBERAL CONSPIRACY THEORIES aren't opinions. They're inane ramblings.

I don't know what you have been reading and surely you can't claim to have read/be aware of everything so you can not make such a statement. There are two sides to this the debate still continues.
It's science. There will always be debate, that's it's nature. Pretending that debating the intricacies of what conclusion(s) can be drawn from what evidence manifests a bisect within the scientific community is disingenuous. It's straight out of the creationsist's playbook. To have weight in that debate you need more than to construct a false dichotomy, you need evidence to back up your side of the argument. As the conclusions of the IPCC (which i know you do your best to dismiss) and literature resoundingly show, the evidence as it currently stands is overwhelmingly against you.

[.Andy]

I'm sorry, but that post does not qualify as a troll.
No need to be sorry. I guess to you unfounded, idiotic conspiracy theories are OK as long as they've got 'liberal' in them.

[r.j.s]

The way I see global warming is this:

Yes, it's real. Is it caused/worsened by man? We don't know. There isn't enough scientific data to figure that out yet. We've only had the ability to record readings and whatnot from around the globe for what - 200 years? Out of how many billions? We don't know what the global climate shift naturally does, NOBODY DOES. Everything is a guess.

What can we do about it? Who knows, it goes back to the question of how much do we have to do with it. If we cause, and I'm making this stat up, 2% of the climate CHANGE of 1 degree, then nothing we do will have much impact and frankly somethings I've heard people talk about doing may actually harm the other parts of the environment.

So we need to figure out how to make things better, instead of scrambling to do anything, no matter how much harm to environment/other people/economies it may cause in the name of something we may have absolutely no control over.

[xUKHCx]

It's science. There will always be debate, that's it's nature. Pretending that debating the intricacies of what conclusion(s) can be drawn from what evidence manifests a bisect within the scientific community is disingenuous. It's straight out of the creationsist's playbook. To have weight in that debate you need more than to construct a false dichotomy, you need evidence to back up your side of the argument. As the conclusions of the IPCC (which i know you do your best to dismiss) and literature resoundingly show, the evidence as it currently stands is overwhelmingly against you.

Seeing as you seem to know my stance on this situation can you please point me to where I have said global warming isn't happening.

[.Andy]

Seeing as you seem to know my stance on this situation can you please point me to where I have said global warming isn't happening.
I was referring to your attempts to construct a dichotomy that climate change is up for debate by two valid sides (for/against) based on the evidence as it currently stands.

Yes, it's real. Is it caused/worsened by man? We don't know. There isn't enough scientific data to figure that out yet. We've only had the ability to record readings and whatnot from around the globe for what - 200 years? Out of how many billions? We don't know what the global climate shift naturally does, NOBODY DOES. Everything is a guess.
You should have a read of the IPCC papers as you've a couple of misconceptions here. This page (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ipcc2007.html#cite1) seems to do a good job of summarising and linking to the reports. If you read nothing more than that page take note of the weighting of the IPCC's conclusions: Extremely likely > 95%, Very likely > 90%, Likely > 66%, More likely than not > 50%, Very unlikely < 10%, Extremely unlikely < 5%..

[xUKHCx]

I was referring to your attempts to construct a dichotomy that climate change is up for debate by two valid sides (for/against) based on the evidence as it currently stands.

I don't think you were because if that were the case then why did you bother to search through at least 4 months worth of posts to look at all my previous statements

94195
94196
94197

And when you found that in these posts I had actually put forward support for environmental issues you have back tracked hence your statement above.

[r.j.s]

You should have a read of the IPCC papers as you've a couple of misconceptions here. This page (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ipcc2007.html#cite1) seems to do a good job of summarising and linking to the reports. If you read nothing more than that page take note of the weighting of the IPCC's conclusions: Extremely likely > 95%, Very likely > 90%, Likely > 66%, More likely than not > 50%, Very unlikely < 10%, Extremely unlikely < 5%..

I read that, but still believe that we may not have nearly as much impact as people say we do. What was the climate like, say 500 years ago? I'm willing to bet that somewhere sometime experienced a very similar change - although they had no idea what it was because they didnt know how to measure any type of change.

[Swarmlord]

<snip>

I was wondering what type of post you'd make in this thread that has nothing to do with anything. I see it's a racist one. Funny, I was expecting something about how all the evidence isn't in, even though it is, but since that would have been on topic I guess that would have been asking too much.


<snip>

I don't know how you interpreted my post as racist, but you have a history of reading whatever you want to read into my posts. Wanting warmer weather for our Middle Eastern friends is not racist.

If you'd read my posts on this topic under different threads, you'd realize that I don't believe it matters what evidence comes in about global warming because the important evidence that no one denies is that the Sun will consume this planet in a couple billion years and it will expand to do so during the time leading up to it.

I think a more pressing concern for our descendants is not how to preserve this planet, but how to relocate off it in time. Even the worst case calculations for weather change wouldn't have it 10 degrees warmer on the average before any climate changes external to our Earth would have more effect than those stemming from the Earth.

[miloblithe]

If you'd read my posts on this topic under different threads, you'd realize that I don't believe it matters what evidence comes in about global warming because the important evidence that no one denies is that the Sun will consume this planet in a couple billion years and it will expand to do so during the time leading up to it.

I think a more pressing concern for our descendants is not how to preserve this planet, but how to relocate off it in time. Even the worst case calculations for weather change wouldn't have it 10 degrees warmer on the average before any climate changes external to our Earth would have more effect than those stemming from the Earth.

That's got to be the most rediculous post I've ever read. Do you have any idea how long a "couple billion years" is? I can't think of a concern that is less pressing.

[Naimfan]

I was wondering what type of post you'd make in this thread that has nothing to do with anything. I see it's a racist one.

I'm sorry, I don't see how that is racist at all without superimposing your own beliefs on it. Can you clarify why you think it's racist?

[Swarmlord]

I'm sorry, I don't see how that is racist at all without superimposing your own beliefs on it. Can you clarify why you think it's racist?

In liberal-speak, racist refers to a white guy referring to a person from any other race or culture in anything other than glowing terms.

[nplima]

don't mean to give people excuses to be wasteful about energy or resources, but I have my doubts about global warming being caused by human activities. here's a graph from the Museum of London (http://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/), about how glaciation periods influenced the growth of the human settlement here. The big graph is drawn with data from ice samples:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2003/2108842681_2510f2b112_o.jpg

To me it's clear that recovering forest area and replacing dirty energy generation by nukes is the way to go, but maybe, just maybe, it won't be global warming the ultimate reason to do all that.

in the meantime, the taxman has been unleashed on petrol and domestic electricity users while in the City the banks and insurance companies leave the lights and PCs on all weekend... :mad:

[solvs]

I disagree with you. Global warming is overblown by the liberals in an attempt to sway your vote. Politicians are all corrupt and will sink to any depths to 'capture' your vote. :)
But you believe the politicians and corporations telling you it isn't real? I don't care about politicians. Other than Gore, who is no longer a politician, I barely hear any of them talking about it anyway. I believe the science, which overwhelming shows not only is it real, but it is being worsened by man. You can throw out terms like "liberal" all you want, and you're more than welcome to your opinion, but it isn't based on fact.

I don't know what you have been reading and surely you can't claim to have read/be aware of everything so you can not make such a statement. There are two sides to this the debate still continues.
But there really shouldn't be. There's one side overwhelming telling us it's real, backing it up with evidence. The other side, which seems to be mostly composed of corporations and politicians, and partisans who try to make it seem like there's a debate by questioning the details. It's like those who are still trying to say we have no evidence cigarettes cause cancer. Of course they do. But if you have people dedicated to saying we don't have all the evidence, but in the case of this administration (who have even had to admit it's real) blocking that evidence (as we know they did) and not wanting to fund the research doesn't automatically mean there should be a debate. They can keep twisting the argument and disputing the facts and never really research it or let the research done speak for itself, and therefor the debate will continue.

I'm curious though, what is the other side of the debate other than "we're not exactly sure", because it certainly isn't that it doesn't exist.

It's science. There will always be debate, that's it's nature. Pretending that debating the intricacies of what conclusion(s) can be drawn from what evidence manifests a bisect within the scientific community is disingenuous. It's straight out of the creationsist's playbook. To have weight in that debate you need more than to construct a false dichotomy, you need evidence to back up your side of the argument. As the conclusions of the IPCC (which i know you do your best to dismiss) and literature resoundingly show, the evidence as it currently stands is overwhelmingly against you.
Exactly.

Yes, it's real. Is it caused/worsened by man? We don't know. There isn't enough scientific data to figure that out yet.
Yes it is, and yes we do.

What can we do about it?
There's a lot we can do that will neither hurt the economy nor cause any more harm. As I said, if we're wrong, we still have a cleaner world and new economic opportunities with less dependence on oil. If we're right, and we don't do anything until everyone gets on board with the evidence we already have, things could be bad. Or worse, depending on the severity, things could be disastrous. Waiting for something to happen, again when it actually already is, doesn't really seem like a good idea.

I don't know how you interpreted my post as racist, but you have a history of reading whatever you want to read into my posts. Wanting warmer weather for our Middle Eastern friends is not racist.
Yeah, that's right, I'm reading in to it. You don't have a pattern of making such comments over and over again in other threads. Play innocent now, calling them our ME "friends" but that wasn't what was implied.

At least I'll have the pleasure of seeing some of my least favorite spots in the world go from damned hot to uninhabitable. Hope the Arabs are saving up some oil to power their airconditioners.
Yes, how on Earth could I ever think that was a racist comment about wanting things to get worse for "the Arabs". :rolleyes:

If you'd read my posts on this topic under different threads, you'd realize that I don't believe it matters what evidence comes in about global warming because the important evidence that no one denies is that the Sun will consume this planet in a couple billion years and it will expand to do so during the time leading up to it.

I think a more pressing concern for our descendants is not how to preserve this planet, but how to relocate off it in time. Even the worst case calculations for weather change wouldn't have it 10 degrees warmer on the average before any climate changes external to our Earth would have more effect than those stemming from the Earth.
That's absolutely ridiculous, and I can't believe you actually think that.

I'm sorry, I don't see how that is racist at all without superimposing your own beliefs on it. Can you clarify why you think it's racist?
By itself, maybe not. But it's a pattern with him. How can you read the above post about wanting his "favorite place in the world" (he often talks about his time in the ME and how terrible it was) to become uninhabitable and how he hopes those "Arabs" can afford air conditioning and think it wasn't at least a little offensive? What do you think he meant, because I don't really see any other way to interpret it.

In liberal-speak, racist refers to a white guy referring to a person from any other race or culture in anything other than glowing terms.
Yes, that's exactly it. :rolleyes: Throw out the word liberal, make me the partisan hack. You're talking about letting an entire region become uninhabitable because you didn't like it there, so we should just build spaceships to colonize other planets. :confused: Pardon me if I don't accept that as a reasonable solution.

[MBHockey]

Anyone else find this thread a microcosm of the debate in the "real world"?

Informed and rational people observing the facts and coming to conclusions based on those facts on one side vs. uninformed and irrational people throwing out conclusory statements because they are, well, uninformed.

Quite amusing and extremely illustrative for the OP.

[xUKHCx]

I'm curious though, what is the other side of the debate other than "we're not exactly sure", because it certainly isn't that it doesn't exist.

It seems I am going to have to make my stance explicitly clear. I came to this thread due to certain comments (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=4610406#post4610406) which totally go against the whole scientific process. I am all for scientific debate but what I don't like to see is such comments or the use of incorrect science, something .Andy highlighted with regard to previous comments of mine about the IPCC. My comments about the "other side" relate to each specific area of research and were put down to try and encourage a good scientific approach. One of looking at both sides of the arguments. After all many papers I have read for the "other side" have gone on to show that it is a negligible issue or only accounts for ~10%. However some of the papers highlight specific issues that are not the cause or flaws in the original paper it is in contention with. All of these issues and scenarios are well worth investigation in order to gain a proper understanding of the subject and to form a reasoned debate.

I will explicitly state as I have done in previous global warming threads and in this thread I have never said that global warming isn't happening. In fact in other threads I have supported environmental issues and debate. However it seems that in general when it comes to global warming (and well pretty much everything) if you say something bad about a specific area it must mean you are talking bad about the whole thing.

[obeygiant]

Anyone else find this thread a microcosm of the debate in the "real world"?

Informed and rational people observing the facts and coming to conclusions based on those facts on one side vs. uninformed and irrational people throwing out conclusory statements because they are, well, uninformed.

Quite amusing and extremely illustrative for the OP.

It may come down to lack of trust of information. These days there are some many underlying circumstances that change intent from something innocuous into something with an agenda. This has become a partisan issue for what reason? This is just speculation but.. Bush is an oil man and a republican (some say). There is a lot of money to be made and the powers that be want to keep it that way. Most of the time oil friendly doesn't mean earth friendly. Enter Al Gore -Democrat. Probably as much into Green as Bush is into oil. He could be considered the spirit of the Democratic Party. Leading the charge with his movie and he's trying to convince the public. If the money to be made can shift from oil to green the other side of the aisle could benefit. You can call this a straw man or tin foil hat time, but it just bit of speculation. and fun. :)

[.Andy]

I don't think you were because if that were the case then why did you bother to search through at least 4 months worth of posts to look at all my previous statements

94195
94196
94197

And when you found that in these posts I had actually put forward support for environmental issues you have back tracked hence your statement above.
True I was going to quote you (and find it hilarious you sat there and looked at my profile doing screen shots!). I was going to quote you with the false dichotomy that you put up in every one of those threads, as well as the times you try and cast dispersions on the IPCC. You've even gone to the lengths of claiming it's possibly all a conspiracy to keep scientists in work. You're casting FUD on the science of climate change for a reason. I certainly am interested in why you've got a bee in your bonnet if you don't deny at least some of the reality of it? (^^^^edit: you've kind of answered this above)

I read that, but still believe that we may not have nearly as much impact as people say we do.
Really? Why? They are one of the most extensive literature reviews done on any field ever.

What was the climate like, say 500 years ago? I'm willing to bet that somewhere sometime experienced a very similar change - although they had no idea what it was because they didn't know how to measure any type of change.
You are aware that there are other ways to determine temperature than just being there and using a thermometer? That there's other ways to determine atmospheric CO2 levels than to send up a probe? I'm confused at why you don't understand this if you've read even the first IPCC report. Even the very first section of the first report deals with introductory issues like this. Did you skip sections wholesale?

[r.j.s]

We cant accurately predict tomorrow's weather - what makes anybody think we can determine what the weather was like 500, 1000, or 2000 years ago, much less 10, 20, 50 years from now?

[solvs]

All of these issues and scenarios are well worth investigation in order to gain a proper understanding of the subject and to form a reasoned debate.
I apologize, I did misunderstand. And I actually agree with what you're saying. We don't have all the facts, and there is still some dispute on the details. As I've said, I didn't use to believe in it until I started seeing the evidence. And no, I don't mean Inconvenient Truth, which I just recently got around to actually watching. But when I started looking into it, it really isn't a debate anymore of whether or not it exists. It certainly does exist. There is just still some debate over how much humans have caused. And a lot of argument from some saying we haven't caused any of it, which most of the evidence doesn't support, because it clearly shows we are making an impact. I just get perturbed when people see questions about the details and not only think humans are making things worse, but actually trying to say it isn't happening at all, man made or not. Then calling it opinion when presented with the facts to the contrary, or pointing to a researcher with an actual agenda, who's usually been discredited, as proof of their assertions. The very fact that the Bush administration keeps trying to bury the evidence tell me something.

That question wasn't an attempt to be hostile BTW, I really was legitimately asking, so thank you for your thoughtful reply. :)

We cant accurately predict tomorrow's weather - what makes anybody think we can determine what the weather was like 500, 1000, or 2000 years ago, much less 10, 20, 50 years from now?
Actually, we can do that.

[xUKHCx]

True I was going to quote you (and find it hilarious you sat there and looked at my profile doing screen shots!). I was going to quote you with the false dichotomy that you put up in every one of those threads, as well as the times you try and cast dispersions on the IPCC. You've even gone to the lengths of claiming it's possibly all a conspiracy to keep scientists in work. You're frothing at the mouth and casting FUD on the science of climate change for a reason. I certainly am interested in why you've got a bee in your bonnet if you don't deny at least some of the reality of it?

For a start I checked your profile page to see if you were still online because it had been a little while between your posting and found it hilarious that you were going through all my previous posts on the subject matter and spent a long time reading through them and then didn't actually post anything.

The dispersion I cast on the IPCC has actually been shown to be correct. The other issues I was puting up, and I am sure you wouldn't have quoted me out of context:rolleyes:, where the other side of common arguments, for example it is the work of oil companies spreading the anti global warming information. The conspiracy (hardly the way I phrased it) I suggested is the natural opposite of this argument as was put forward to show that it works both ways and that blank statements as such offer no place in the debate and was meant slightly tongue in cheek.

It seems that you are getting back into the patronising view (or at least condescending)that you presented in previous threads.

I also refer you to my previous post.

Edit:

That question wasn't an attempt to be hostile BTW, I really was legitimately asking, so thank you for your thoughtful reply. :)

It gave me the opportunity to try and explain my view point, something I had been meaning to do for quite a while in this thread, So thank you to.

[r.j.s]

Actually, we can do that.
How? Computer models based upon less than 200 years of real, hard data? Is that how we look into the future, because I can point to a computer model that shows anything you want it to based upon any facts you feed it. In fact there is a computer that is predicting the end of the world in 2012 ... If that's the case, global warming is completely meaningless.

[skunk]

We cant accurately predict tomorrow's weather - what makes anybody think we can determine what the weather was like 500, 1000, or 2000 years ago, much less 10, 20, 50 years from now?You have clearly missed the difference between "weather" and "climate". Climate and average temperatures in past centuries can be determined by measuring isotope frequencies, floral and faunal populations, ice layer thicknesses, ocean temperatures and so on.

[SMM]

It may come down to lack of trust of information. These days there are some many underlying circumstances that change intent from something innocuous into something with an agenda. This has become a partisan issue for what reason? This is just speculation but.. Bush is an oil man and a republican (some say). There is a lot of money to be made and the powers that be want to keep it that way. Most of the time oil friendly doesn't mean earth friendly. Enter Al Gore -Democrat. Probably as much into Green as Bush is into oil. He could be considered the spirit of the Democratic Party. Leading the charge with his movie and he's trying to convince the public. If the money to be made can shift from oil to green the other side of the aisle could benefit. You can call this a straw man or tin foil hat time, but it just bit of speculation. and fun. :)

Somewhere in the 6-12 month timeframe, 10 CEO's, of the largest US corporations, met with Bush. They had drafted an opinion piece on why the US needed to get 'on board' with the rest of the world, and begin working on Global Warming. They also urged him to do this immediately! Now, these are men who were vehemently anti-environment not too long before. However, they could no longer repudiate the science and had become convinced we are facing a world-wide emergency. To my mind, this was the strongest affirmation for the environment ever. Yet, it really went nowhere.

The whole point in this thread was not to debate the merits of the global warming issue. Few here are really qualified to do so. There is a plethora of information about the subject available, and it is easy to find. Most of the scientific information is from the world-wide scientific community. It is not opinion from any political party. But, some continue to make it so. That is the point!

The Bush administration has been on a program to systematically confuse the issue, thus making it a liberal-conservative battle, when it is not. Come on friends, we need to look at the previous debates, between the experts, and see why George Bush thinks he knows more than the best minds in the world.

[Naimfan]

By itself, maybe not. But it's a pattern with him. How can you read the above post about wanting his "favorite place in the world" (he often talks about his time in the ME and how terrible it was) to become uninhabitable and how he hopes those "Arabs" can afford air conditioning and think it wasn't at least a little offensive? What do you think he meant, because I don't really see any other way to interpret it.

Well, fair enough! Just to play devil's advocate, in the absence of other statements, it could just have been a joke. I just didn't see anything in that particular statement to indicate that it was racially motivated.

[.Andy]

The dispersion I cast on the IPCC has actually been shown to be correct. I'll give you a chance to back up your claims so you can show how you're 'correct'. A charge of yours against the IPCC is that they used scientifically disproven facts to reach their conclusions. That's a pretty serious charge of complete academic misconduct which if true should and would lead to loss of grants and employment of any complicit scientist.
Yeah lets not forget there [sic, IPCC] use of scientifically disproven facts, or Al gore sensationalist movie. Don't get me wrong i'm all for improving the world we live in but you have to use "facts" carefully.
What scientifically disproven facts did the IPCC include in their reports? Note that you're referring to 'facts' that were included that were already disproved, not ones that were subsequently usurped by further research. With your love of scientific debate please only refer me to peer-reviewed scientific papers, not crackpot websites.

For a start I wouldn't believe everything put out by the IPCC, for a start their very existence is based on the fact that it is happening (case in point).
How has this one been shown to be correct?

edit: Can you see why there is confusion over your motives when you post stuff like above, don't back it up, and then subsequently claim to be only interested in 'scientific debate' and 'exploring both sides'?

[xUKHCx]

I will get back to this when I have time to collect the sources again. To begin with please can you correct your post so that the quotes that you have taken out of context actually refer back to their original locations so that people can (if they want to) read the thread and get the context around the quotes. But of course that was done by accident.

I will answer the immeaditley answerable points

How has this one been shown to be correct?

It hasn't been show to be correct and I refer you to my previous post (please read) where I already answered this point and actually pre-emtively predicted what ultimately came

The other issues I was puting up, and I am sure you wouldn't have quoted me out of context:rolleyes:, where the other side of common arguments, for example it is the work of oil companies spreading the anti global warming information. The conspiracy (hardly the way I phrased it) I suggested is the natural opposite of this argument as was put forward to show that it works both ways and that blank statements as such offer no place in the debate and was meant slightly tongue in cheek.

Going from memory I will outline the sources and ideas I am looking at just so that you don't think I don't have evidence to substantiate my claims. I will add sources at a later date but due to the current workload I can not say when that will be. (I know, I know)

(HUGE DISCLAIMER - THIS IS ALL FROM MEMORY, FROM A LONG TIME AGO, SO ANY NAMES/DATES ARE IN NO WAY GUARANTEED TO BE CORRECT)

I'll give you a chance to back up your claims so you can show how you're 'correct'. A charge of yours against the IPCC is that they used scientifically disproven facts to reach their conclusions. That's a pretty serious charge of complete academic misconduct which if true should and would lead to loss of grants and employment of any complicit scientist.

The work I am referring to is that of Mann et al. They used incorrect (as stated by the UN in ~95) proxies to produce the "hockey stick" graph which I believe was sent to all Canadian households and used in the IPCC 2001 report. This was later highlighted by McIntyre et al and the US Senate.

What scientifically disproven facts did the IPCC include in their reports? Note that you're referring to 'facts' that were included that were already disproved, not ones that were subsequently usurped by further research. With your love of scientific debate please only refer me to peer-reviewed scientific papers,

For a start I would like the correct link back so I can read over my comments again. But I believe this is the same reference as above.

not crackpot websites.

Please do not go down that route which you have travelled before. After all I haven't causally thrown around terms, such as froathing at the mouth, FUD, crackpot, bee in your bonnet, to belittle your arguments.

[.Andy]

I will get back to this when I have time to collect the sources again. To begin with please can you correct your post so that the quotes that you have taken out of context actually refer back to their original locations so that people can (if they want to) read the thread and get the context around the quotes. But of course that was done by accident.
There's no way either of those quotes I put up there meant anything other than what they mean standing alone. I'll play along anyway as I'm a sport;

Quote #1 (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=367608&highlight=climate) Post #5.

Quote #2 (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=389280&page=2&highlight=climate post) Post #33.

Going from memory I will outline the sources and ideas I am looking at just so that you don't think I don't have evidence to substantiate my claims. I will add sources at a later date but due to the current workload I can not say when that will be. (I know, I know)
Perhaps if you didn't spend so much time taking screen shots of people's profiles you'll have more time to reference your claims ;).

The work I am referring to is that of Mann et al. They used incorrect (as stated by the UN in ~95) proxies to produce the "hockey stick" graph which I believe was sent to all Canadian households and used in the IPCC 2001 report. This was later highlighted by McIntyre et al and the US Senate. You're way off the mark here. For starters the hockey stick is not based off single sources of data or indeed a single independent author (i.e. Mann). Here's some links regarding the faux controversy of the hockey stick graph (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stick/) with references included. As you can see McIntyre's work has been thoroughly rejected and discredited (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/false-claims-by-mcintyre-and-mckitrick-regarding-the-mann-et-al-1998reconstruction/) in peer review journals. If we're basing things on the Mann graph it was published in 1998, included in the IPCC report in 2001, and then McIntyre didn't publish (or atempt to) until 2003 and 2003. So even if the McIntyre work was legit (which it isn't), this doesn't at all cut it that the IPCC used 'diproven' facts in their report. It would be a case of the inclusion of work which was later challenged (i.e science).

[solvs]

How?
You're kidding right?

Well, fair enough! Just to play devil's advocate, in the absence of other statements, it could just have been a joke. I just didn't see anything in that particular statement to indicate that it was racially motivated.
Maybe, but what else could he have meant? Notice all I got was a "that's not what I meant" and no further explanation. Not that I expected anything more. It's par for the course for him. "Wanting warmer weather for our Middle Eastern friends" sure doesn't sound very nice, and if you knew his posts, you'd see how he really feels about our "ME friends". Also notice how quick he was to throw out the term "liberal" in a derogatory manner to attempt to discredit me by painting me as the partisan. Again, without further expanding on what he did mean. Even if it was a "joke", it wasn't a very funny one, wanting that region to become uninhabitable because he didn't like it there.

I don't blame you for trying to play the devil's advocate, but you might want to know what you're defending before you do so... ;)

[Badandy]

I was wondering what type of post you'd make in this thread that has nothing to do with anything. I see it's a racist one. Funny, I was expecting something about how all the evidence isn't in, even though it is, but since that would have been on topic I guess that would have been asking too much.




There was nothing racist about Swarmlord's comment. Seems like someone is a little bit too obsessed with political correctness.

[Iscariot]

It may come down to lack of trust of information. These days there are some many underlying circumstances that change intent from something innocuous into something with an agenda. This has become a partisan issue for what reason? This is just speculation but.. Bush is an oil man and a republican (some say). There is a lot of money to be made and the powers that be want to keep it that way. Most of the time oil friendly doesn't mean earth friendly. Enter Al Gore -Democrat. Probably as much into Green as Bush is into oil. He could be considered the spirit of the Democratic Party. Leading the charge with his movie and he's trying to convince the public. If the money to be made can shift from oil to green the other side of the aisle could benefit. You can call this a straw man or tin foil hat time, but it just bit of speculation. and fun. :)

It really doesn't matter a flying fig about whether the information on climate change is trustworthy or not. Even if you discount it entirely, and do not believe mankind is responsible for one iota of climate change, and are 100% correct, we still have to act.

You can dispute that climate change is happening, but you can not dispute that the Earth has a finite number of resources available, and that we are on a disatrous course towards depleting them. Interestingly, the means for "ending" global warming are almost identical to the means for a sustainable future, because they both revolve around the principal of giving back exactly as much as we take. Which should be common sense by this point anyways.

[solvs]

There was nothing racist about Swarmlord's comment. Seems like someone is a little bit too obsessed with political correctness.

Read the above couple of posts.

What did he mean then?

[.Andy]

Read the above couple of posts.

What did he mean then?
Bigandy is just protecting his queen ;).

[Badandy]

Read the above couple of posts.

What did he mean then?

I thought he meant exactly what he said, quite literally. There was nothing racist about it. Read it again.

Bigandy is just protecting his queen ;).

I don't know Swarmlord and have not interacted on the forums with him/her at all. Of course, perhaps you're referring to someone else, as my name is Badandy? But touché on the word play...

[solvs]

I thought he meant exactly what he said, quite literally.
That he hopes the ME, a place he regularly talks about how much he hates, becomes uninhabitable?

At least I'll have the pleasure of seeing some of my least favorite spots in the world go from damned hot to uninhabitable. Hope the Arabs are saving up some oil to power their airconditioners.
Yeah, nothing bad about that statement at all.

[Badandy]

Yeah, nothing bad about that statement at all.

Now you're on to it.

[solvs]

Now you're on to it.
You don't see a problem with that?

Again I have to ask, what did he mean then if apparently it isn't what I think it is?

[obeygiant]

You don't see a problem with that?

Again I have to ask, what did he mean then if apparently it isn't what I think it is?

"damned hot to uninhabitable" in this case would be "hot to hotter than someone could bear". It refers to the apparent increase in temperature due to global warming. And yes, air conditioners would have to be turned on. There really is nothing "racist" in that statement. But don't let political correctness get in the way of a good debate. :)

[Iscariot]

I'm impressed with the derailment talents of some. I have to brainstorm paragraphs of fiction for the same results.

[obeygiant]

In a thread thats 6 pages there is bound to be a few tangents. Its not a bad thing its just the nature of the beast.

Oh, and Global Warming is bad, very bad.

[Roger1]

certainly.

What's "air america" anyway? An Airline?


It's a Mel Gibson movie, remember? :D


EDIT: Wait, that was an airline, wasn't it?? :D

[Badandy]

"damned hot to uninhabitable" in this case would be "hot to hotter than someone could bear". It refers to the apparent increase in temperature due to global warming. And yes, air conditioners would have to be turned on. There really is nothing "racist" in that statement. But don't let political correctness get in the way of a good debate. :)

Bingo.

[latergator116]

"damned hot to uninhabitable" in this case would be "hot to hotter than someone could bear". It refers to the apparent increase in temperature due to global warming. And yes, air conditioners would have to be turned on. There really is nothing "racist" in that statement. But don't let political correctness get in the way of a good debate. :)

Ok, but why would someone take pleasure in seeing this happen? :confused:

[skunk]

Ok, but why would someone take pleasure in seeing this happen? :confused:We can only guess.

[Badandy]

Ok, but why would someone take pleasure in seeing this happen? :confused:

I doubt it's to see every innocent man, woman, and child die, so people can't be so quick to dismiss it as racist bantering.

I'll give you a few reasons why someone would take pleasure in this. One of the most unstable parts of the world controls a lot of one of the world's most precious natural resources. This is a region of the world where women are treated as inferior animals and where theocracy reigns. Nothing like good, old religious texts teaching us how to run a modern government I always say...


Now obviously there are exceptions to that, but I don't think the comment was racist. In fact, it was perfectly straight forward. Please refer to obeygiant's in depth analysis of the statement in question.

[pseudobrit]

I'll give you a few reasons why someone would take pleasure in this. One of the most unstable parts of the world controls a lot of one of the world's most precious natural resources. This is a region of the world where women are treated as inferior animals and where theocracy reigns.

Sounds like Europe for most of the past 2000 years.

[Iscariot]

Sounds like Europe for most of the past 2000 years.

Haven't you heard? Once one nation does something progressive, all other nations have to be held to the exact same standard and will adopt changes rapidly.

That's why the U.S. supports gay marriage, socialized medicine and the geneva convention unequivocally.

I'm willing to put $5 on incoming mock outrage

[Badandy]

Haven't you heard? Once one nation does something progressive, all other nations have to be held to the exact same standard and will adopt changes rapidly.

That's why the U.S. supports...socialized medicine...

I'm willing to put $5 on incoming mock outrage

MOCK OUTRAGE!!!!

Well some of us in the U.S. are against socialized medicine because while we do want everyone in America to have health insurance, we don't think it's the government's job to make it so. But that's a discussion for another thread. I'll be content with mock outrage.

[latergator116]

I doubt it's to see every innocent man, woman, and child die, so people can't be so quick to dismiss it as racist bantering.

I'll give you a few reasons why someone would take pleasure in this. One of the most unstable parts of the world controls a lot of one of the world's most precious natural resources. This is a region of the world where women are treated as inferior animals and where theocracy reigns. Nothing like good, old religious texts teaching us how to run a modern government I always say...


Now obviously there are exceptions to that, but I don't think the comment was racist. In fact, it was perfectly straight forward. Please refer to obeygiant's in depth analysis of the statement in question.

Racist or not (never said it was), I think it's pretty messed up to take pleasure in someones home becoming uninhabitable (even if there are a lot of problems in the region).

[Badandy]

Racist or not (never said it was), I think it's pretty messed up to take pleasure in someones home becoming uninhabitable (even if there are a lot of problems in the region).

Fair enough. I was just saying it wasn't racist, we have a lot of overly PC people on these boards, but your opinion seems perfectly valid.

[solvs]

Ok, but why would someone take pleasure in seeing this happen? :confused:
Exactly.

I doubt it's to see every innocent man, woman, and child die, so people can't be so quick to dismiss it as racist bantering.
You haven't been around here long. Again, it's part of a pattern. He's clearly said similar things in the past. And I can't help but notice even though he's been on here, he still hasn't returned to this thread to clarify. You can dismiss it as being too PC, but as someone who's been paying attention to his posts for a long time, I can't help but think this is another in a long line of anti-Muslim comments. Wanting his "favorite place" to "become uninhabitable"? :confused: That doesn't sound very nice to me.

Even if you don't think it's racist (and succeeding in once again veering us off topic) you can at least admit it doesn't sound very nice, and isn't as funny as he seemed to think it was, right? I'm guessing you don't agree with it. I'm hoping you don't agree with it.

Racist or not (never said it was), I think it's pretty messed up to take pleasure in someones home becoming uninhabitable (even if there are a lot of problems in the region).
Maybe I should have just went with my first choice, deplorable, and left the "racist" comment for the other thread where he was more obvious about it.

[Badandy]

Even if you don't think it's racist (and succeeding in once again veering us off topic) you can at least admit it doesn't sound very nice,
I wasn't trying to veer us off course, I just don't like when people call other people racists. It's a term that's thrown around far too nonchalantly now days.


Maybe I should have just went with my first choice, deplorable, and left the "racist" comment for the other thread where he was more obvious about it.

Yes, possibly.


Well it seems this issue is behind us. Back to the original topic.

[solvs]

I wasn't trying to veer us off course, I just don't like when people call other people racists. It's a term that's thrown around far too nonchalantly now days.
Agreed, but as I said, this was only one in a series of posts that did seem very much so, past and current.

A response explaining what he meant, if he didn't mean that, would have been nice too, but he doesn't do that either.

Well it seems this issue is behind us. Back to the original topic.
Would be nice, but we've veered firmly off point, something that seems to happen a lot, and there's not really much more to debate. Until next time this comes up again of course, and we do this all over again. ;) But feel free to prove me wrong, as I'm hoping someone has something more *ahem* constructive to add.

[nplima]

Ok, but why would someone take pleasure in seeing this happen? :confused:

Exactly.



well, not so much sadistic pleasure, but a tragic example of "karma". For many generations the people of the Middle East have been fighting each other for a variety of reasons while their most precious natural resource has been the basis of the world economy.

In the near future this all might have to change:
1) the cheap oil will eventually dry up
2) the oil buyers will shift away from that energy source for other reasons
3) climate change will force human settlements to do what is normal in the animal word: move away from areas without relevant natural resources.

The issue with 3) is that the peoples of the Middle East do not have enough friends to welcome them to neighbouring regions. That's the bad karma I was talking about.

[solvs]

well, not so much sadistic pleasure, but a tragic example of "karma".
I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt since apparently otherwise I'd be jumping to an incorrect conclusion (no matter what it's based on), but that doesn't sound very nice either.

We've done some pretty bad things too, but I don't want the US to become unhabitable.

[skunk]

For many generations the people of the Middle East have been fighting each other for a variety of reasons while their most precious natural resource has been the basis of the world economy.The people of the rest of the world have been fighting each other too, and it's our economy that has relied particularly on oil.The peoples of the Middle East do not have enough friends to welcome them to neighbouring regions. That's the bad karma I was talking about.The "peoples of the Middle East" are just like the peoples of any other region: women, children and men, but with a culture particularly suited to living in a climate the rest of us might regard as unbearable. If and when they are driven out by heat or hunger, I expect the peoples of the neighbouring regions will welcome them as best they can. Schadenfreude has no place in climate discussions.

[solvs]

The "peoples of the Middle East" are just like the peoples of any other region: women, children and men
Which is I think what set me off. As if these people aren't. Or they're lesser, or since we don't like "their culture" (forgetting "they" can be as different as we are) somehow "they" deserve what "they" get. Sometimes I think some of us forget that they are just people, like anyone else. I know that's not the intent of some posters, to put it that way, but it sure comes across that way.

[nplima]

The people of the rest of the world have been fighting each other too, and it's our economy that has relied particularly on oil.The "peoples of the Middle East" are just like the peoples of any other region: women, children and men,

Before people call me bad names, let me say I believe that individually the guy from Somalia has more or less the same potential as the other one from Denmark or Argentina... the collective difference that cannot be denied is that while the European nations are not fighting each other in the same way they were in 1942, the "Middle East Peace Process" is the official name for ongoing conflicts that last for generations.

If or when the sea level rises, people in the Netherlands, Belgium, even in Eastern England will be pressed to relocate. The same will happen elsewhere and if it comes to that, I bet that the Dutch would have more success borrowing territories in Europe than some peoples of the Middle East would have negotiating rights of passage with neighbours.

[skunk]

Bthe "Middle East Peace Process" is the official name for ongoing conflicts that last for generations.The conflicts have been going on since 1948, when the colonial powers allowed a collection of ethnic Jews, including some refugees, to seize and place under their own political control a large area of land in the area Palestinians had inhabited continuously since time immemorial.

If or when the sea level rises, people in the Netherlands, Belgium, even in Eastern England will be pressed to relocate. The same will happen elsewhere and if it comes to that, I bet that the Dutch would have more success borrowing territories in Europe than some peoples of the Middle East would have negotiating rights of passage with neighbours.I expect that if it ever came to that, all such problems would have to be handled by the UN. Which country in Europe do you think would willingly accommodate 20 million displaced Dutch refugees and 10 million Belgians?

This is all wishful thinking anyway on the part of some who wish ill upon the inhabitants of the Middle East, who would probably cope with the extremes of heat just as competently as they have for the past three thousand years.

[Swarmlord]

<snip>
This is all wishful thinking anyway on the part of some who wish ill upon the inhabitants of the Middle East, who would probably cope with the extremes of heat just as competently as they have for the past three thousand years.

Insh' Allah. :)

[nplima]

The conflicts have been going on since 1948, when the colonial powers allowed a collection of ethnic Jews, including some refugees, to seize and place under their own political control a large area of land in the area Palestinians had inhabited continuously since time immemorial.


My original comment was about oil producing countries, where I would not include the region you specified. Maybe we have different ideas about what the "Middle East" region includes. I'm thinking of "Fertile Crescent" and the Arabian peninsula.


I expect that if it ever came to that, all such problems would have to be handled by the UN. Which country in Europe do you think would willingly accommodate 20 million displaced Dutch refugees and 10 million Belgians?

the answer is simple: not all the populations would need to leave and they would not all go in the same direction. Same will happen elsewhere, but without building on the decades of peace and cooperation Europe has had.

This is all wishful thinking anyway on the part of some who wish ill upon the inhabitants of the Middle East, who would probably cope with the extremes of heat just as competently as they have for the past three thousand years.

Sure they'll cope. they just won't have too many friendly neighbours to host immigrants or to trade or to allow use of water supplies and stuff like that. But that's my guess and everybody knows I have lots of ill-will, instead of accepting some self-blaming notion that peace and prosperity exist in a fixed amount and if the West has them it's at the expense of someone else.

[skunk]

But that's my guess and everybody knows I have lots of ill-will.I am making no assumptions about your feelings, only about those of the poster above who clearly delights in the prospect of the Middle East becoming a living hell.

[solvs]

I am making no assumptions about your feelings, only about those of the poster above who clearly delights in the prospect of the Middle East becoming a living hell.
Again, ditto, but apparently that was lost because of my apparently poor choice of words.

And as we see from the post above, what little of it there is, there's still no defense or clarification.