Official Global Warming thread (merged)

[FLVOL_79]

As you are so fond of saying...

"I posted it a while back."

However, being that you are forgetful in your labeling of people, I will remind you that I believe climate change is being way, way, way over exaggerated especially since it's such a hot political topic. I think the science still needs further research and, as I have continued to state, all sides should be heard as well as put forward.

Now you get to call me a conspiracy theorist because I believe some of the science has been suppressed. And you'll go on to show my how "climategate" was all a fantasy and was taken entirely out of context. However, the mere fact alone that some of the science was not included is what we call in the cop business a "clue." In order to make educated decisions on potential climate change actions, we have to have ALL the information on the table and not just that which happens to be politically popular at the time.

And I'll restate my original opinion that I believe the climate is changing. And I believe humans have a hand in that. But whether we are the predominate factor in this remains to be seen. And just because you can pull up a dozen articles showing mankind of the primary reason doesn't mean that it's true. Trying to model conditions over several million years and base predictions on the future is not a trivial task unless all the information is taken into account. And furthermore, I don't want to hear just the doom and gloom of the future. I know there is always a worst and best case scenario for every prediction, but why do I get the funny feeling we tend to always get the worst case told to us? To me, it seems that climate change scientists continue to overstate the effects and just aren't telling the entire story here. Coming from the same people that told us by the year 2020 we'd have to be wearing 5,000,000 SPF sunblock because of the global warming and lack of ozone, you can see why I might think they playing the Chicken Little card a little too often when it comes to the "science."

So until the science behind climate change becomes un-politicized, all voices are heard and all predictions are put forward in a politically neutral environment I remain skeptical of the science that's put out. And I know you won't agree with this, but the fact that is a highly volatile political topic should be the warning flare that something just isn't right. Politicians only start standing on principles like this when there is something to gain. And whether that happens to be financial in nature through "campaign contributions" from the fossil fuel industry or continuing to stay in office through a voting block doesn't matter. Power and money are the ultimate motives here and you can't tell me there isn't a single politician out there that gives a damn one way or the other when it comes to climate change science unless it benefits them.

So unbiased and complete science and predictions are needed before anyone, and I mean EVERYONE can make a decision one way or the other.

And instead of labeling anyone who doesn't agree with your position on the matter with a disparaging term, perhaps you could be objective about it and look at it from both sides of the equation as I have done and continue to do.

 

[BartW]

I should have listened to Super Geologist Stan Marsh when he preached on about climate change!

Randy Marsh is far and away my favorite SP character. That picture is from the margaritaville economy episode, not the spontaneous combustion episode. Ironically Randy is preaching about the sacred economy.

Remember to fart in moderation :focus:

 

[tennvols77]

Just when I grow tired of all this nonsense, you go and totally redeem yourself with a meaningful and memorable SP jab to pull me back in. Well done, well done. I will continue to check in on the thread.

 

[FLVOL_79]

Randy Marsh is far and away my favorite SP character. That picture is from the margaritaville economy episode, not the spontaneous combustion episode. Ironically Randy is preaching about the sacred economy.

Remember to fart in moderation :focus:

Randy and Cartman for me. Hadn't had morning coffee yet. Apologies lil Stan Marsh wherever you may be!

One of my favorite episodes of all time is when Randy fights other Dad's at the little league games and they play the song from Karate Kid..hilarious.

 

[Grand Vol]

What does population control have to do with earth science or global warming?

Ummm, really? Do I need to break this down for you in that line of thought?

 

[BartW]

Ummm, really? Do I need to break this down for you in that line of thought?

If you wish. I really don’t see how it’s relevant.

You’re nitpicking and ignoring the bulk of my post. It’s OK, I ask a lot of questions. You’re one of the better posters on this board so I was hoping for another point by point response, but alas. The question I’d most like to hear your response to (one that’s been posed by myself and others to the skeptic crowd numerous times) is:

What would convince you? What unanswered questions do you have? What new tests do you want to see performed? What new evidence do you require?

 

[govols/cc]

If you wish. I really don’t see how it’s relevant.

You’re nitpicking and ignoring the bulk of my post. It’s OK, I ask a lot of questions. You’re one of the better posters on this board so I was hoping for another point by point response, but alas. The question I’d most like to hear your response to (one that’s been posed by myself and others to the skeptic crowd numerous times) is:

What would convince you? What unanswered questions do you have? What new tests do you want to see performed? What new evidence do you require?

Everyone ignores the bulk of your posts.

 

[BartW]

Does everyone who smokes get lung cancer? No.
Do people who don't smoke get lung cancer? Yes.

Wow, how did this post get likes? That's as dumb as the non-argument that climate changed before man. Do we really have tobacco carcinogenicity denialists in our midst? I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.

You realize that big tobacco’s campaign to confound the science eventually failed, right? You realize they were successfully sued for not only for tort, but also racketeering (among numerous charges)?

US racketeering lawsuit against tobacco companies
On September 22, 1999, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a racketeering lawsuit against Philip Morris and other major cigarette manufacturers.[157] Almost 7 years later, on August 17, 2006 U.S. District Court Judge Gladys Kessler found that the Government had proven its case and that the tobacco company defendants had violated the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).[4] In particular, Judge Kessler found that PM and other tobacco companies had:

• conspired to minimize, distort and confuse the public about the health hazards of smoking;
• publicly denied, while internally acknowledging, that second-hand tobacco smoke is harmful to nonsmokers, and
• destroyed documents relevant to litigation.

The ruling found that tobacco companies undertook joint efforts to undermine and discredit the scientific consensus that second-hand smoke causes disease, notably by controlling research findings via paid consultants. The ruling also concluded that tobacco companies continue today to fraudulently deny the health effects of ETS exposure.[4]
On May 22, 2009, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit unanimously upheld the lower court's 2006 ruling.[158][159][160]

Sound familiar? Exxon and pals have already faced lawsuits over climate change, and eventually the truth will win out and they'll be forced to shell out hundreds of billions like the tobacco industry.

Is misinformation about the climate criminally negligent?
Climate science sceptics target philosopher with toxic hate mail (referring to above article)

And, as released per the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement, here is the complete documentation of big tobacco's knavery:

Legacy Tobacco Documents Library

 

[FLVOL_79]

Wow, how did this post get likes? That's as dumb as the non-argument that climate changed before man. Do we really have tobacco carcinogenicity denialists in our midst? I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.

You realize that big tobacco’s campaign to confound the science eventually failed, right? You realize they were successfully sued for not only for tort, but also racketeering (among numerous charges)?



Sound familiar? Exxon and pals have already faced lawsuits over climate change, and eventually the truth will win out and they'll be forced to shell out hundreds of billions like the tobacco industry.

Is misinformation about the climate criminally negligent?
Climate science sceptics target philosopher with toxic hate mail (referring to above article)

And, as released per the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement, here is the complete documentation of big tobacco's knavery:

Legacy Tobacco Documents Library

You DO understand that people get lung cancer without smoking right?? You DO understand people smoke all their lives and NOT get cancer right??

I am an ex smoker (10 years smoke free) and I am about as anti smoking as they come..borderline nazi anti smoking..

In Rock School did they teach you about cell mutation?

I am not supporting Tobacco and their BS. :good!:

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Wow, how did this post get likes? That's as dumb as the non-argument that climate changed before man. Do we really have tobacco carcinogenicity denialists in our midst? I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.

You realize that big tobacco’s campaign to confound the science eventually failed, right? You realize they were successfully sued for not only for tort, but also racketeering (among numerous charges)?



Sound familiar? Exxon and pals have already faced lawsuits over climate change, and eventually the truth will win out and they'll be forced to shell out hundreds of billions like the tobacco industry.

Is misinformation about the climate criminally negligent?
Climate science sceptics target philosopher with toxic hate mail (referring to above article)

And, as released per the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement, here is the complete documentation of big tobacco's knavery:

Legacy Tobacco Documents Library

So does everyone who smokes develop lung cancer?

Is it possible to develop lung cancer without smoking?

Also where did anyone deny the carcinogenic effects of smoking? Why do you constantly put words in people's mouths? Why do you have a need to make things up?

 

[BartW]

You DO understand that people get lung cancer without smoking right?? You DO understand people smoke all their lives and NOT get cancer right??

I am an ex smoker (10 years smoke free) and I am about as anti smoking as they come..borderline nazi anti smoking..

In Rock School did they teach you about cell mutation?

I am not supporting Tobacco and their BS. :good!:

Congratulations (really). I should hope you don't support big tobacco's BS. But you are using their same line of reasoning to downplay the link between smoking and cancer. You've employed two of the five characteristics of scientific denialism: cherry-picking and impossible expectations/moving goalposts.

Yes some people smoke their entire lives and don't get lung cancer. Yes some people get lung cancer without ever picking up a cigarette. That doesn't undermine the fact that smoking causes lung cancer.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Congratulations (really). I should hope you don't support big tobacco's BS. But you are using their same line of reasoning to downplay the link between smoking and cancer. You've employed two of the five characteristics of scientific denialism: cherry-picking and impossible expectations/moving goalposts.

Yes some people smoke their entire lives and don't get lung cancer. Yes some people get lung cancer without ever picking up a cigarette. That doesn't undermine the fact that smoking causes lung cancer.

Good Lord man are you seriously this dense? Do you really not understand the difference between CAN CAUSE and DOES CAUSE?

 

[BartW]

Good Lord man are you seriously this dense? Do you really not understand the difference between CAN CAUSE and DOES CAUSE?

Your game of semantics bores me. From the Surgeon General:

January 11, 2014 marked the 50th anniversary of the first Surgeon General’s Report on Smoking and Health. The 1964 landmark report, released by Surgeon General Dr. Luther Terry, was the first federal government report linking smoking and ill health, including lung cancer and heart disease. This scientifically rigorous report laid the foundation for tobacco control efforts in the United States.

In the last 50 years, 31 Surgeon General’s Reports have been released, increasing our understanding of the devastating health and financial burdens caused by tobacco use. We now know that smoking causes a host of cancers and other illnesses and is still the leading preventable cause of death in the United States, killing 443,000 people each year.

From the CDC:

Cigarette smoking is the number one risk factor for lung cancer. In the United States, cigarette smoking causes about 90% of lung cancers. Using other tobacco products such as cigars or pipes also increases the risk for lung cancer. Tobacco smoke is a toxic mix of more than 7,000 chemicals. Many are poisons. At least 70 are known to cause cancer in people or animals.

People who smoke are 15 to 30 times more likely to get lung cancer or die from lung cancer than people who do not smoke. Even smoking a few cigarettes a day or smoking occasionally increases the risk of lung cancer. The more years a person smokes and the more cigarettes smoked each day, the more risk goes up.

People who quit smoking have a lower risk of lung cancer than if they had continued to smoke, but their risk is higher than the risk for people who never smoked. Quitting smoking at any age can lower the risk of lung cancer.

Smoking can cause cancer almost anywhere in the body. Smoking causes cancer of the mouth, nose, throat, voicebox (larynx), esophagus, bladder, kidney, pancreas, cervix, stomach, blood, and bone marrow (acute myeloid leukemia).

There's nothing wrong or dishonest about saying, "Smoking causes cancer." On the other hand, there is a LOT wrong with saying:

Vaccines can be a cause of autism.

 

[Grand Vol]

If you wish. I really don’t see how it’s relevant.

Let's just say population control goes a long way in helping halt the generation of greenhouse gasses. Less population, less pollution, etc, etc. It's not a secret the amount of resources on our planet is finite and less people using them stretches it a lot more.

So that's how population control affects climate change. At least in some people's eyes.

You’re nitpicking and ignoring the bulk of my post. It’s OK, I ask a lot of questions. You’re one of the better posters on this board so I was hoping for another point by point response, but alas. The question I’d most like to hear your response to (one that’s been posed by myself and others to the skeptic crowd numerous times) is:

What would convince you? What unanswered questions do you have? What new tests do you want to see performed? What new evidence do you require?

I've already said what would convince me. Less politics and all the science being put forward without the shrieking of those that refuse to compromise. We cannot have a reasonable debate on climate change without having the global warming crowd shoving their point of view up our butts.

 

[BartW]

Let's just say population control goes a long way in helping halt the generation of greenhouse gasses. Less population, less pollution, etc, etc. It's not a secret the amount of resources on our planet is finite and less people using them stretches it a lot more.

So that's how population control affects climate change. At least in some people's eyes.

Interesting. I’ve really never heard anyone try to make that connection. Do you have any evidence that there is a trend between global warming acceptance and population control advocacy in the scientific community or elsewhere? Any other examples?

Also you realize Holdren doesn’t advocate forced sterilization or anything right? AFAIK he’s only stated that overpopulation will become an issue (which IMO isn’t a very controversial statement).

I've already said what would convince me. Less politics and all the science being put forward without the shrieking of those that refuse to compromise. We cannot have a reasonable debate on climate change without having the global warming crowd shoving their point of view up our butts.

If you want the objective unpoliticized facts, read the scientific literature. Read AR5 as it comes out. Your feeling that we’re shoving a point of view up your butt is just that, a feeling. The science community on the other hand feels like a broken record. There has been a consensus literally for decades.

There’s a good faith debate to be had about policy solutions to fight climate change, but we can’t keep having this fake debate about whether or not it even exists. The political right is polluting this discussion far more than the left. And that's not a biased view; I lean right and vote libertarian.

 

[BartW]

Since we’re on the topic of big tobacco let’s talk some more about the shared histories of tobacco and climate denialism. In particular, let’s focus on the fathers of climate denial: Frederick Seitz, William Nierenberg, Robert Jastrow, and S. Fred Singer (SandVol's homeboy).

Seitz began his corporate denial career (after retiring from Rockefeller University) as a consultant for R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and later Phillip Morris International. Academic studies of tobacco industry influence (see: Legacy Tobacco Documents Library) concluded that Seitz, who helped allocate $45m of Reynolds' research funding, played a key role in helping the tobacco industry produce uncertainty concerning the health impacts of smoking.

Fred Seitz founded the George C. Marshall Institute in 1984 together with Nierenberg and Jastrow. Originally the institute’s mission was to defend Reagan’s star wars program against criticism from the Union of Concerned Scientists by arguing for equal time in the media to air their views under the Fairness Doctrine. This has two-fold irony. First being that their organization only consisted of 3 members vs. 6500 in the UCS (reminiscent of the vocal minority of ‘skeptics’ and creationists that demand ‘equal time’). Second being that in 1987 the Reagan administration killed the Fairness Doctrine, which it viewed as unnecessary government intervention in communications markets that chilled free speech.

Well the cold war ended and instead of disbanding the institute shifted its focus from defense to environmental skepticism. In 1990 they published the granddaddy of global warming ‘skeptic’ literature entitled Global Warming: What Does the Science Tell Us? in which they stated no warming was occurring, and even if it were there was no greenhouse “problem” because technology would enable adaptation as long as the government did not interfere with the free market.

The institute teamed up with Fred Singer and took the views that tobacco was having no effect, that Acid Rain was not caused by human emissions, that ozone was not depleted by CFCs, that pesticides were not environmentally harmful, yada yada yada. Several scientists have joined and rapidly quit the GMI because, as former executive director Mathew Crawford put it, the institute was “fonder of some facts than others.” They contended a conflict of interest exists in the institute’s funding. But besides being bankrolled by big oil and big tobacco, what else were their motivations? What did each ex-scientist have in common?

The answer is that they were all physicists working for cold war defense programs (Seitz even worked on the Manhattan Project down the road in Oak Ridge). They were all fiercely anti-communist and pro-capitalist. Their work repeatedly refers to environmentalists as ‘watermelons’ – green on the outside, but red on the inside. They called regulation "creeping communism". They are prototypical free market fundamentalists.

While they worked to defend the SDI they focused on nuclear winter, seismic verification, space technology, etc. Those were all related to the cold war, weapons, and rocketry programs – areas where they had considerable experience and expertise. However, when the cold war ended and they shifted their focus towards anti-environmentalism, their credentials lost value. They have no expertise in the sciences related to climate change, ozone, acid rain, smoking, pesticides, etc. They offer no new explanations for observed phenomena. They only poke holes at established work, viciously and baselessly attack the reputation of mainstream scientists, and misrepresent scientific uncertainty as actual doubt. These were the EXACT SAME TACTICS used by the EXACT SAME PEOPLE in the tobacco carcinogenicity denial campaign. They don’t do any scientific research or publish in peer-reviewed journals. Instead of debating scientists in the halls of science they’ve resorted to spreading misinformation through books and op-eds, testifying before congress, and posing as ‘experts’ on Faux Newz and the like.

They have disguised a political debate as a scientific one, and in doing so have greatly misrepresented the science, confused the American people, and delayed political action on one of the pressing global issues of our time.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Green Guru James Lovelock on Climate Change:

 

[FLVOL_79]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/embed/l3FLtVAxKsk[/youtube]

 

[BartW]

Green Guru James Lovelock on Climate Change:

Lovelock is a 94 year old independent scientist/inventor/author who holds no science degree and works out of his barn. He's been criticized by mainstream science over his lulzy Gaia hypothesis and other ramblings for decades. Yet Morano's website portrays him as a climate expert. Typical...

Maybe Marc Morano just doesn't know what an expert is? After all he signed Fred Singer's hilariously fradulent Leipzig Declaration and frequently appears on Faux News as a climate expert, despite holding no science degrees (unless you count poly sci ). He has a pretty sweet track record working for Rush Limbaugh and Senator Inhofe. Not to mention being one of the original Swiftboaters. With articles like SAVE THE PLANET! DON'T BREATHE OUT! DOES OBAMA HAVE THE "FORMAL POWER" TO REGULATE EVEN THE BREATHING OF EACH CITIZEN? it's hard to believe anyone takes his website seriously.

 

[BartW]

From Plato's Three Dialogues:

Socrates: You were saying, in fact, that the rhetorician will have, greater powers of persuasion than the physician even in a matter of health?

Gorgias: Yes, with the multitude-that is.

Soc. You mean to say, with the ignorant; for with those who know he cannot be supposed to have greater powers of persuasion.

Gor. Very true.

Soc. But if he is to have more power of persuasion than the physician, he will have greater power than he who knows?

Gor. Certainly.

Soc. Although he is not a physician:-is he?

Gor. No.

Soc. And he who is not a physician must, obviously, be ignorant of what the physician knows.

Gor. Clearly.

Soc. Then, when the rhetorician is more persuasive than the physician, the ignorant is more persuasive with the ignorant than he who has knowledge?-is not that the inference?

Gor. In the case supposed:-Yes.

Soc. And the same holds of the relation of rhetoric to all the other arts; the rhetorician need not know the truth about things; he has only to discover some way of persuading the ignorant that he has more knowledge than those who know?

Gor. Yes, Socrates, and is not this a great comfort?-not to have learned the other arts, but the art of rhetoric only, and yet to be in no way inferior to the professors of them?

Denialism makes Socrates and Plato sad

 

[FLVOL69]

**** em!

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

From Plato's Three Dialogues:



Denialism makes Socrates and Plato sad

:crazy: Boring!! :sleep: Got anymore boring crap to put up?

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Lovelock is a 94 year old independent scientist/inventor/author who holds no science degree and works out of his barn. He's been criticized by mainstream science over his lulzy Gaia hypothesis and other ramblings for decades. Yet Morano's website portrays him as a climate expert. Typical...

Maybe Marc Morano just doesn't know what an expert is? After all he signed Fred Singer's hilariously fradulent Leipzig Declaration and frequently appears on Faux News as a climate expert, despite holding no science degrees (unless you count poly sci ). He has a pretty sweet track record working for Rush Limbaugh and Senator Inhofe. Not to mention being one of the original Swiftboaters. With articles like SAVE THE PLANET! DON'T BREATHE OUT! DOES OBAMA HAVE THE "FORMAL POWER" TO REGULATE EVEN THE BREATHING OF EACH CITIZEN? it's hard to believe anyone takes his website seriously.

Just par for the course with you Bart. You can put up links and they are legit. Someone else puts up a link and even if it contains a scientist, the link and person are automatically not credible. You talk about serious websites? Are you joking? You use links from Wikipedia and salon.com and you want to talk about other people using questionable websites? lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:

 

[BartW]

Just par for the course with you Bart. You can put up links and they are legit. Someone else puts up a link and even if it contains a scientist, the link and person are automatically not credible. You talk about serious websites? Are you joking? You use links from Wikipedia and salon.com and you want to talk about other people using questionable websites? lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:

Sh!t denialists say…

False Equivalence Fallacy

:crazy: Boring!! :sleep: Got anymore boring crap to put up?

I try to maintain a healthy balance of boring facts and funny pictures.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Sh!t denialists say…

False Equivalence Fallacy



I try to maintain a healthy balance of boring facts and funny pictures.

Where am I denying climate change? All I am saying is that there are those that disagree. Oh and if you understood the fallacy you named, you would know I didn't commit it. But I have come to expect deflecting methods like this from you.