Official Global Warming thread (merged)

#2,930
#2,930
FLVOL_79 said:
Just busting chops.


So whats your take on fixing climate change by becoming Vegans?..
Click to expand...

I think it's a cliche used to stereotype environmentalism by conflating it with dirty hippies' nature woo.

While methane emissions from livestock do make a measurable contribution to climate change, they only make up a minority of total methane emissions which only make up a minority of total GHG forcings. And atmospheric methane is short-lived (~12 years) so there's little long-term damage from livestock emissions. The only way methane will screw us is if there's a rapid mass release from permafrost or clathrates.

We'd give up fossil fuels long before we give up meat

h5044C0B3
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#2,932
#2,932
BartW said:
Katharine Hayhoe named to Time's 100 Most Influential People
Click to expand...

"It's not about saving the planet: the planet will be fine without us. It's about helping people, real people who are being affected by climate change today. Higher energy bills for air conditioning, freak rainstorms, and droughts wiping out their food supply -rising sea level threatening their homes and fields. It's the poor and disadvantaged who are being hardest hit: those very people the Bible tells us to care for."

Is she serious? Maybe if she starts praying more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,933
#2,933
BartW said:
I think it's a cliche used to stereotype environmentalism by conflating it with dirty hippies' nature woo.

While methane emissions from livestock do make a measurable contribution to climate change, they only make up a minority of total methane emissions which only make up a minority of total GHG forcings. And atmospheric methane is short-lived (~12 years) so there's little long-term damage from livestock emissions. The only way methane will screw us is if there's a rapid mass release from permafrost or clathrates.

We'd give up fossil fuels long before we give up meat

h5044C0B3
Click to expand...

I think John Kerry or Algore..one of those morons, said we should stop eating meat to save the Ozone layer..I was like wtf..
 
#2,934
#2,934
Did anyone catch last week’s episode of Cosmos? I just watched and found it surprisingly relevant to this thread. The story centered on the geochemist Clair Patterson who was the first person to accurately calculate the age of the earth. What I didn’t know about Patterson is that his work in lead-lead dating lead him to the realization that lead, a potent neurotoxin, is all around us in abundances thousands of times greater than pre-industrial levels.

So after discovering the age of the earth Clair Patterson began researching lead from an environmental aspect. But now, Patterson wasn't pissing off just young-earth creationists any longer; rather, he was about to encounter another source of science denial in America: corporate and special interests.

Patterson and Kehoe, and the great lead debate

This instance of corporate denialism was spearheaded by lead-industry funded Robert Kehoe, who was a longtime scientific advocate for leaded gasoline. In the following decades a historic clash ensued between Patterson and Kehoe before Congress over the science of lead in the environment. Science eventually won and Kehoe’s tactics became known as the “Kehoe paradigm” – essentially, “instill doubt”. Industry has successfully employed the Kehoe paradigm to delay regulation on lead, asbestos, tobacco, acid rain, global warming, and other environmental/public health issues.

climatechange14.jpg


So what do you think of Clair Patterson? Hero for standing up to big money politics and saving the human race from mass lead poisoning? Or another villainous scientist hell-bent on destroying the economy/turning everyone communist?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,937
#2,937
BartW said:
Dealing in Doubt: The Climate Denial Machine vs. Climate Science

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/embed/PuP-3c3Ybnk[/youtube]

“Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.”

-Brown & Williamson tobacco company
Click to expand...


Nobody here denies tobacco is bad for you. We deny global warming because its another liberal statist scam for the purpose of increasing the size of government.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,938
#2,938
Sandvol said:
Nobody here denies tobacco is bad for you. We deny global warming because its another liberal statist scam for the purpose of increasing the size of government.
Click to expand...

The same was said of efforts to regulate tobacco. And ozone depletion, acid rain, asbestos, DDT, lead…

Anti-Environmentalism
Stereotyping

• Conflating actual environmental problems with the nature woo peddled by some environmental groups (e.g., aspartame scares, rejection of GM crops as "Frankenfoods").

• Conflating all environmentalists with dirty effin' hippies, Luddites, or hard greens like Pentti Linkola. This generally involves representing them as a "Gaia worshiping cult" or representing environmentalism as a "secular religion." This tactic works especially well for propagandizing to the Religious Right and social conservatives, as environmental concerns can be portrayed as a bogeyman that will supplant Christianity. This can also play on the belief that gawd will save us from environmental disaster or that the end is nigh. (Creationist propaganda organs like the Discovery Institute have also hopped on board the climate denial bandwagon, which should tell you something.)

• Dismissing environmentalism as a socialist movement in disguise — "red greens" or "watermelons", who supposedly use environmentalism as a cloak to render anti-capitalist sentiments more palatable.[7][8] (The film The Great Global Warming Swindle leans heavily on this stereotype.)

• Representing conservation as merely leftist ideology (breaking irony meters for those who remember who instituted the Environmental Protection Agency). This involves conflating ideologies like eco-socialism with environmentalism as a whole — environmentalism equals socialism, communism, Marxism, etc. This also helps to appeal to conservatives who enjoy hippie-punching and old farts that forgot the Cold War ended 20 years ago.

• Attempting to tie environmental advocates to some evil plot by ecoterrorist outfits. Yes, terrorism-baiting even has a play here.

• Any environmental regulations will most assuredly destroy the economy forever. Wonder what a significant amount of economists think about a carbon tax.[9]

• Painting environmentalists as evil misanthropes and "environmental classists." Apparently, they are also all busy-bodies who just want to micromanage your life.[10]

• Common snarl words: Alarmist, eco-fascism, eco-imperialism, eco-Marxism, enviro-Nazi, enviro-weenie, warmist, watermelon (characterizing an environmentalist as having ulterior political motives; a watermelon is green on the outside but red on the inside).
Click to expand...
“You know, Jim, this bunch of scientists was one of the few groups that I encountered in Washington who seemed to be there to help the country and not to help themselves."

-Republican president Dwight Eisenhower
 
#2,939
#2,939
Bart, are you one of the primary editors at "rationalwiki.com"? You CCP from there an awful lot and either you aren't capable of an original thought, or you get paid for every hotlink back to that site.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#2,940
#2,940
MG1968 said:
Bart, are you one of the primary editors at "rationalwiki.com"? You CCP from there an awful lot and either you aren't capable of an original thought, or you get paid for every hotlink back to that site.
Click to expand...

Bart's tactics are straight from leftist statist playbook: "Attack the attacker!" If you can't win in the arena of ideas then focus on the people those ideas come from. Marginalize them and then you can marginalize their ideas. Bart is one of John Cook's soldiers and that's where he gets his marching orders. Love to know where they get all their funding from but it is probably not too hard to guess.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,941
#2,941
MG1968 said:
Bart, are you one of the primary editors at "rationalwiki.com"? You CCP from there an awful lot and either you aren't capable of an original thought, or you get paid for every hotlink back to that site.
Click to expand...
I’m flattered you guys think I get paid by our science overlords to spread the message. Rationalwiki is a .org site and I count a grand total of 7 entries I’ve ever linked from there over the course of the GW threads. Wowzers
Sandvol said:
Bart's tactics are straight from leftist statist playbook: "Attack the attacker!" If you can't win in the arena of ideas then focus on the people those ideas come from. Marginalize them and then you can marginalize their ideas. Bart is one of John Cook's soldiers and that's where he gets his marching orders. Love to know where they get all their funding from but it is probably not too hard to guess.
Click to expand...
Ad hominem is only fallacious when the personal attack has little or no bearing on the argument at hand. Establishing a pattern of behaviour and modifying one’s treatment of or trust in others based on such patterns of behaviour is entirely reasonable and rational.

Corporate and special interests have fueled science denialism in the past, successfully delaying (but not preventing) regulation. There’s nothing wrong with pointing out the fact that central figures in the global warming denial movement like Seitz, Singer, and Milloy are proven shills. It’s not a coincidence that the same libertarian anti-regulation (un)think tanks that shilled for Big Tobacco are now spreading GW disinformation. It’s not a coincidence that they too employ the Kehoe paradigm (see Rhymes with Smokey Joe and A Well-Documented Strategy). Only by exposing denialism can we inoculate the public against such tactics.

Of course this has little effect on the Sandvols who already lap up all the BS they’re spoonfed by Singer and pals, seriously believing that DDT, acid rain, ozone depletion, ETS, global warming, etc. are all part of the evil liberal science conspiracy :no: That crazy train left the station ages ago
 
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#2,945
#2,945
BartW said:
Hey O, I watched Death by China. Did you ever get around to my suggestions?
Click to expand...

No. I forgot all about it. Thanks for the reminder. I emailed myself a note to watch them this evening.

Any opinion on the one you watched?
 
#2,946
#2,946
Former NASA Scientist: Global Warming is Nonsense

A former NASA scientist has described global warming as "nonsense", dismissing the theory of man-made climate change as "an unsubstantiated hypothesis" and saying that it is "absolutely stupid" to blame the recent UK floods on human activity.
Professor Les Woodcock, who has had a long and distinguished academic career, also said there is "no reproducible evidence" that carbon dioxide levels have increased over the past century, and blamed the green movement for inflicting economic damage on ordinary people.
 
#2,947
#2,947
Obsessed said:
No. I forgot all about it. Thanks for the reminder. I emailed myself a note to watch them this evening.

Any opinion on the one you watched?
Click to expand...
I thought it brought up important issues about our crappy position in the current geopolitical landscape (largely thanks to MNO's outsourcing), but it was a little over the top. The imagery at times was laugh-out-loud cheesy. And the film didn’t really offer much in the way of solutions. It was worth the watch though. Gave it 3 stars
Obsessed said:
Former NASA Scientist: Global Warming is Nonsense

A former NASA scientist has described global warming as "nonsense", dismissing the theory of man-made climate change as "an unsubstantiated hypothesis" and saying that it is "absolutely stupid" to blame the recent UK floods on human activity.
Professor Les Woodcock, who has had a long and distinguished academic career, also said there is "no reproducible evidence" that carbon dioxide levels have increased over the past century, and blamed the green movement for inflicting economic damage on ordinary people.
Click to expand...
Not sure if serious here… We know CO2 levels have increased from direct spectroscopic measurements of the atmosphere, direct measurements of ocean pCO2/pH, and the rather obvious fact that we emit several gigatons of CO2 annually. The link had more common fringe ‘skeptic’ talking points, not even worth addressing imo. It’s unfortunate how much blatantly false mis/disinformation is out there.
 
#2,949
#2,949
Are you mentally challenged or something? You can call it denial or whatever you want but nobody cares. It's that simple. And by nobody I mean the entire planet. The planet has undergone changes for a few billion years that had nothing to do with man. Talking about something without a feasible solution that's impossible to execute is a waste of time. If this is what your "education" has consisted of then you wasted your time.
 
#2,950
#2,950
Obsessed said:
Former NASA Scientist: Global Warming is Nonsense

A former NASA scientist has described global warming as "nonsense", dismissing the theory of man-made climate change as "an unsubstantiated hypothesis" and saying that it is "absolutely stupid" to blame the recent UK floods on human activity.
Professor Les Woodcock, who has had a long and distinguished academic career, also said there is "no reproducible evidence" that carbon dioxide levels have increased over the past century, and blamed the green movement for inflicting economic damage on ordinary people.
Click to expand...

Haven't you learned OB? All scientists are incredible unless Bart says so.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top