Official Global Warming thread (merged)

[FLVOL69]

Climate Change hysteria is similar to the propaganda movie Reefer Madness. It's like the science that brought ADHD to he forefront.

Great flick btw...

 

[FLVOL_79]

Sigh, same old disinformation… I'll just link the relevant posts.

Earth is still warming, despite the so-called ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’:

They call those seasons..but deny 17 years of cooling..makes sense when pushing a failing climate change agenda.

The Arctic and Antarctic (and glaciers around the world) are losing ice rapidly:

Those global warming scientists who got stuck in the antarctic ice would disagree.

The term ‘climate change’ was not recently invented and doesn’t replace the term ‘global warming’:

Old phrase but it has absolutely taken the place of global warming as the preferred environmental hysteria nomenclature.

While I agree that the government shouldn’t be subsidizing green energy (or big oil, for that matter), 97% of Obama’s taxpayer-funded green energy projects have been successful, which is par for the course:

Blatantly false

Your suggestion that these relatively miniscule alternative energy companies could outfund the well-documented (and publically admitted) denial campaign funded by Exxon, Koch, etc. is ludicrous. If climate scientists were in it for the money, they’d be in the private sector or working for one of those industry-funded BS think tanks. Scientists don’t need global warming. If it weren’t real, academics would simply research something else.

tinfoil hat on pretty tight there? You do know the Koch brothers are the go to scapegoat in liberal fantasy land when they have no real substance to their argument. I like to just call it batsh!t crazy..right up there with the JFK and Elvis nuts. And BILLIONS is not miniscule.

Your complete lack of understanding of cap and trade is equally comical. You realize we’ve had a cap and trade system for SO2 emissions for decades? And that it succeeded in mitigating pollution at only a fraction of the predicted cost? Still, I prefer the carbon tax to cap and trade.

Good lord infant baby non bearded Jesus H Christ... Cap and Trade isn't new and I never said it was. It's a sham that DOES NOTHING to limit pollution. Take some time to read up on and it and comprehend it. Its tool to trick liberal environmental morons into thinking the government and corporations are doing something about the environment. I'll make it simple for you. Polluting too much? Buy more pollution credits on the emissions trade from a company that has excess. Keep on polluting. Cap and Trade. Leave the business thinking up to people who actually know it.

I’ve addressed these myths several times, and I even directly responded to you the last time you brought up the climate change terminology myth. As usual, you ignore my posts and come back and repeat the exact same myth over and over. It’s dishonest and makes you look dumb yet again.

So you saying that the climate change terminology myth isn't a myth is addressing the myth of the terminology? :blink:

Do you believe the scientific community, or the same corporate shills that told people smoking has no health risks (despite the broad consensus to the contrary)?

You do realize that your rabid belief in the the apocalyptic climate change is funded by corporate shills? And you don't have to believe the scientific community to know smoking is bad for you. If it takes reading a medical journal to know that ingesting smoke into your lungs might not be a good idea you probably should have been aborted as a fetus.

Wordage fail. One is not a denier simply because of their stance on an issue. Denialism describes the tactics one uses to support their argument when they face an overwhelming consensus and have little or no facts to support their case. And y’alls arguments follow the denial formula to a T. It’s quite fascinating really.
Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond?
Denialism Blog

Yet you still use the denier term yourself to describe anyone who does not agree with you 100%..:blink:

And your denialism BLOG fails legitimacy with the whole blog title. Blogging..when journalists fail at being journalists...and in this case obviously fail at science.

So is it a wealth redistribution scheme upwards or downwards? Will curbing CO2 emissions be harder on developing or developed countries? This thread is full of contradictory conspiracy theories. Indeed, one of the characteristics of conspiracy theories is that they are poorly thought out, consisting of an amalgam of loosely related (and often contradictory) sound bites. Is someone ever going to try to give a detailed explanation of the great global warming conspiracy? Maybe you can get some ideas from senator inhofe’s book:

Climate change hysteria focuses on wealth distribution downwards..to the poor. In fact almost every study on climate change complains about how the impact will most adversely affect the poor. It really boils down to white European guilt and a pathetic attempt to make up for perceived bad past deeds.

For being so "science savvy" you seem to not really grasp the true nature of your climate change overlords. But hey what do I expect..this is the age of internet scientists and pseduo-science-journalist bloggers.

 

[utvolpj]

Sen Boxer does her best SNL impression

In California, we can just look out the window to see climate change's impacts – from the driest year on record in 2013 to the increased frequency and intensity of wildfires.

 

[FLVOL_79]

Great flick btw...

The way they act "high" is how I often envision most liberals acting when trying to win an argument.

 

[FLVOL_79]

Sen Boxer does her best SNL impression

Climate change makes people light forest fires...

 

[OldandStillaVol]

I don't know that vaccines cause autism Bart. Haven't done the researc or studied it enough. Why do scientists think the rates of children with autism have increased 100fold in the last 50 years or so? Serious question.

I read that the chances now o a child being born with or "regressing" to autism are around 1 in 1000. Which is insanely high. Do you know why?

Marcus: The short answer is no one knows why the incidence of autism is increasing. The blog below by Dr. Tom Insel, Director of the National Institute of Mental Health, summarizes some of the possible genetic and environmental possibilities.

NIMH · Autism Progress

 

[BartW]

They call those seasons..but deny 17 years of cooling..makes sense when pushing a failing climate change agenda.

False. Seasons are not climate change. Global average temperature has continued to increase even over your cherry-picked timeframe.

Those global warming scientists who got stuck in the antarctic ice would disagree.

No they wouldn’t. Melting ice and rising sea levels are simple observable facts. Their ironic accident doesn’t change the facts.

Old phrase but it has absolutely taken the place of global warming as the preferred environmental hysteria nomenclature.

‘Global warming’ and ‘climate change’ don’t mean the same thing, but keep on believin if it gets you off.

Blatantly false

That figure is directly from the Department of Energy. But I guess they’re in on the conspiracy too?

tinfoil hat on pretty tight there? You do know the Koch brothers are the go to scapegoat in liberal fantasy land when they have no real substance to their argument. I like to just call it batsh!t crazy..right up there with the JFK and Elvis nuts. And BILLIONS is not miniscule.

Koch and Exxon have openly admitted to funding denialist think tanks. It’s public record. Alternative energy companies are miniscule compared to big oil.

Good lord infant baby non bearded Jesus H Christ... Cap and Trade isn't new and I never said it was. It's a sham that DOES NOTHING to limit pollution. Take some time to read up on and it and comprehend it. Its tool to trick liberal environmental morons into thinking the government and corporations are doing something about the environment. I'll make it simple for you. Polluting too much? Buy more pollution credits on the emissions trade from a company that has excess. Keep on polluting. Cap and Trade. Leave the business thinking up to people who actually know it.

If you put a price on pollution, industry will decrease pollution. It’s common sense and a simple observable fact in the case of SO2 emissions.

So you saying that the climate change terminology myth isn't a myth is addressing the myth of the terminology? :blink:

The idea that scientists started using the term ‘climate change’ instead of ‘global warming’ to cover their asses is a myth. I’ve provided evidence to the contrary but, as usual, you ignore it.

You do realize that your rabid belief in the the apocalyptic climate change is funded by corporate shills? And you don't have to believe the scientific community to know smoking is bad for you. If it takes reading a medical journal to know that ingesting smoke into your lungs might not be a good idea you probably should have been aborted as a fetus.

The same market fundamentalist think tanks and even the same fake scientists that were bankrolled by Phillip Morris and co. to deny the health risks of smoking are the exact same people and organizations taking money from fossil fuel industries and conservative billionaires to deny the reality of climate change. That’s not speculation, it’s an observable fact.

Yet you still use the denier term yourself to describe anyone who does not agree with you 100%..:blink:

And your denialism BLOG fails legitimacy with the whole blog title. Blogging..when journalists fail at being journalists...and in this case obviously fail at science.

No I am open to healthy honest debate. I’m just calling out the dishonest tactics used in your systematic denial of reality.

Climate change hysteria focuses on wealth distribution downwards..to the poor. In fact almost every study on climate change complains about how the impact will most adversely affect the poor. It really boils down to white European guilt and a pathetic attempt to make up for perceived bad past deeds.

You’ll have to take that issue up with your pals that think it focuses on wealth redistribution from the hard-working middle class American up to greedy scientists, liberals, and green energy companies. You might also want to tell developing nations who think it's a western scam to stunt their growth and maintain western superiority.

For being so "science savvy" you seem to not really grasp the true nature of your climate change overlords. But hey what do I expect..this is the age of internet scientists and pseduo-science-journalist bloggers.

I’m a geologist and well-versed in the relevant sciences. It’s you who lacks formal education and instead relies on ‘skeptic’ blogs.

 

[marcusluvsvols]

Vaccines don't cause autism. I question your numbers (100fold seems way too high and 1 in 1000 way too low imo) but it's not my area of expertise and I don't care to look into it too much. The primary cause for the increase in autism diagnoses is the reclassification of several disorders (e.g. Asperger's) under the Autism Spectrum and improvements in doctors' abilities to diagnose it. There may be other factors at play, such as those causing the increase of autoimmune or other genetic diseases. It's very much an area of ongoing research and I'm just speculating. But I will confidently state that vaccines are NOT causing the apparent increase in autism. This dangerous myth has been debunked countless times. Still, many people refuse to vaccinate their children and consequently diseases such as measles, mumps, polio, and whooping cough are making a comeback.

If you are really interested I would say just google it, but with all the misinformation out there I understand it can be difficult for a layperson to sift through the BS. I only skimmed these links but this might be a good place to start:

CDC Features - Why Are Autism Spectrum Disorders Increasing?
WebMD Special Report: Autism - Searching for Answers

Thanks. You know I don't agree with you about climate change but I'm never afraid to ask a question bro. Most people are too proud to admit they don't know everything....and die ignorant for it.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Vaccines don't cause autism. I question your numbers (100fold seems way too high and 1 in 1000 way too low imo) but it's not my area of expertise and I don't care to look into it too much. The primary cause for the increase in autism diagnoses is the reclassification of several disorders (e.g. Asperger's) under the Autism Spectrum and improvements in doctors' abilities to diagnose it. There may be other factors at play, such as those causing the increase of autoimmune or other genetic diseases. It's very much an area of ongoing research and I'm just speculating. But I will confidently state that vaccines are NOT causing the apparent increase in autism. This dangerous myth has been debunked countless times. Still, many people refuse to vaccinate their children and consequently diseases such as measles, mumps, polio, and whooping cough are making a comeback.

If you are really interested I would say just google it, but with all the misinformation out there I understand it can be difficult for a layperson to sift through the BS. I only skimmed these links but this might be a good place to start:

CDC Features - Why Are Autism Spectrum Disorders Increasing?
WebMD Special Report: Autism - Searching for Answers

These links pretty much say what I and many have said. We really do not know what is causing the increase in autism. Good job Bart. I have a serious question. How can you, a person who admittedly is not in the medical field, definitively state that vaccines are NOT causing autism when not even the experts can agree on it?

So you can say with confidence, that there is NO chance vaccines can cause autism? Sorry but that is a statistical impossibility. There is a POSSIBILITY that vaccines CAN cause autism. We really do not know yet. Now I expect that in the coming years research and testing will prove that vaccines don't cause autism. As of right now though, there is SOME doubt. Why you cannot admit the mere possibility of a link between vaccines and autism is very short sighted.

 

[marcusluvsvols]

I have readabout toddlers who were perfectly normal walking...talking etc...and then regressed into autism. I have also read about small children developing autism after being inoculated. I'm not sure vaccines cause autism...but I'm def not sure they don't. My wife and I were very worried about getting our son vaccinated..worried prayed and decided to do it as a "lesser of 2 evils" mindset. Its time for my daughter to receve a battery of vaccines now before starting school. Of course I am worried. I asked my aunt and uncle before my son was done and they said it was a matter of weighing risks. Both are UT educated career microbiologists with more than 50 years combined in the field. Neither of them dismissed the link between vaccines and autism. Just told me to weigh the risks. This was about 7 years ago.

 

[FLVOL69]

I have readabout toddlers who were perfectly normal walking...talking etc...and then regressed into autism. I have also read about small children developing autism after being inoculated. I'm not sure vaccines cause autism...but I'm def not sure they don't. My wife and I were very worried about getting our son vaccinated..worried prayed and decided to do it as a "lesser of 2 evils" mindset. Its time for my daughter to receve a battery of vaccines now before starting school. Of course I am worried. I asked my aunt and uncle before my son was done and they said it was a matter of weighing risks. Both are UT educated career microbiologists with more than 50 years combined in the field. Neither of them dismissed the link between vaccines and autism. Just told me to weigh the risks. This was about 7 years ago.

Space them out, did that with my twins.

 

[marcusluvsvols]

I asked Bart for the most part bc he seems to enjoy posting peer reviewed research. 7 years is a long time and I figured any information he could provide would be useful. I was correct in that assumption I think.

 

[marcusluvsvols]

The CDC now says 1 in 88 kids has autism? Wtf is going on man.

Think about how many kids were in your school growing up....or your hs..these numbers are insane. Scary.

 

[Judge Holden]

Leave it to ignorant souls like yourselves to deny global warming. It fits in nicely with your other beliefs, such as believing that the earth is only 6000 years old, Jesus is real, and that capitalism is good for poor people with no money.

 

[govols/cc]

Leave it to ignorant souls like yourselves to deny global warming. It fits in nicely with your other beliefs, such as believing that the earth is only 6000 years old, Jesus is real, and that capitalism is good for poor people with no money.

I leave it to ignorant people to make these posts.

 

[tumscalcium]

Leave it to ignorant souls like yourselves to deny global warming. It fits in nicely with your other beliefs, such as believing that the earth is only 6000 years old, Jesus is real, and that capitalism is good for poor people with no money.

What other screen name have/do you post under?

 

[FLVOL69]

What other screen name have/do you post under?

Sounds like Hurd ...

 

[tumscalcium]

Sounds like Hurd ...

Remember that guy a little while ago that came out if nowhere and was angry and just insulted everybody then got banned? He made LG look like a hardcore republican. Was that Hurd? Anyway, ole Judge seems familiar.

 

[FLVOL69]

Remember that guy a little while ago that came out if nowhere and was angry and just insulted everybody then got banned? He made LG look like a hardcore republican. Was that Hurd? Anyway, ole Judge seems familiar.

Sure sounds like him.

 

[Obsessed]

Leave it to ignorant souls like yourselves to deny global warming. It fits in nicely with your other beliefs, such as believing that the earth is only 6000 years old, Jesus is real, and that capitalism is good for poor people with no money.

How many poor people do you know that gave people jobs?

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Leave it to ignorant souls like yourselves to deny global warming. It fits in nicely with your other beliefs, such as believing that the earth is only 6000 years old, Jesus is real, and that capitalism is good for poor people with no money.

Geez Bart why do you need to post under this alt account? Also why bring religious beliefs into the conversation? Running out of ammo so you have to bring in a non-related topic to compensate?

 

[BartW]

These links pretty much say what I and many have said. We really do not know what is causing the increase in autism. Good job Bart. I have a serious question. How can you, a person who admittedly is not in the medical field, definitively state that vaccines are NOT causing autism when not even the experts can agree on it?

The experts agree vaccines do not cause autism. Just because they don’t know everything about autism doesn’t mean they can’t definitively state vaccines do not cause autism.

So you can say with confidence, that there is NO chance vaccines can cause autism? Sorry but that is a statistical impossibility. There is a POSSIBILITY that vaccines CAN cause autism. We really do not know yet. Now I expect that in the coming years research and testing will prove that vaccines don't cause autism. As of right now though, there is SOME doubt. Why you cannot admit the mere possibility of a link between vaccines and autism is very short sighted.

You’re mistaking scientific uncertainty for actual doubt. For example, I could say (like in my last cartoon) that jelly beans cause acne. Can you disprove it? I can tell you that X herb may cure cancer. Can you disprove it? I can tell you that you live in the matrix. Can you disprove it?

Requiring 100% certainty about anything is an impossible expectation of what science can deliver. It’s one of the five characteristics of denialism, also called moving goalposts.

 

[BartW]

Thanks. You know I don't agree with you about climate change but I'm never afraid to ask a question bro. Most people are too proud to admit they don't know everything....and die ignorant for it.

I asked Bart for the most part bc he seems to enjoy posting peer reviewed research. 7 years is a long time and I figured any information he could provide would be useful. I was correct in that assumption I think.

:hi:

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

The experts agree vaccines do not cause autism. Just because they don’t know everything about autism doesn’t mean they can’t definitively state vaccines do not cause autism.



You’re mistaking scientific uncertainty for actual doubt. For example, I could say (like in my last cartoon) that jelly beans cause acne. Can you disprove it? I can tell you that X herb may cure cancer. Can you disprove it? I can tell you that you live in the matrix. Can you disprove it?

Requiring 100% certainty about anything is an impossible expectation of what science can deliver. It’s one of the five characteristics of denialism, also called moving goalposts.

Appeal to authority logical fallacy. So because they don't know everything about autism doesn't mean they cannot state definitively vaccines do not cause autism? Oh my Lord kid please tell me you're joking. Smoking causes cancer. Now we don't understand everything about cancer but we do know smoking causes cancer. Is that true?

The burden of proof says that I do not have to disprove anything. You have to prove your statement. Good luck.

 

[BartW]

Appeal to authority logical fallacy. So because they don't know everything about autism doesn't mean they cannot state definitively vaccines do not cause autism? Oh my Lord kid please tell me you're joking. Smoking causes cancer. Now we don't understand everything about cancer but we do know smoking causes cancer. Is that true?

The burden of proof says that I do not have to disprove anything. You have to prove your statement. Good luck.

Uuhhhh you've got that burden of proof backwards buddy. I have to prove that vaccines don't cause autism? No, you have to prove that vaccines do cause autism. I can't prove a negative, but I can state that there's no statistical signficance (or underlying science) that indicates vaccines could cause autism.

Yes (hopefully) most of us here agree smoking causes cancer, but Philip Morris and co. argue that we should not regulate tobacco because of the scientific uncertainty. Again, scientific uncertainty is not equivalent to real doubt. If we all adhered to denialists' impossible expectations of science we'd never get past the cogito.