Aliens Caused Global Warming - Scientific Consensus

#76
#76
#84
#84
govols/cc said:
Climate change is real. There you go.
Click to expand...

Nuh-uh!

climate-change-global-hoax-lol-500x399.jpg
 
#85
#85
You know Bart, you might be able to get more across if you'd tone down the douche level just a tad, stop using the whole big tobacco argument and quit calling people names.

Doesn't help you in the least when your audience doesn't care for the way you come across. You could be 100% correct and still fail to deliver your message properly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#86
#86
Grand Vol said:
You know Bart, you might be able to get more across if you'd tone down the douche level just a tad, stop using the whole big tobacco argument and quit calling people names.

Doesn't help you in the least when your audience doesn't care for the way you come across. You could be 100% correct and still fail to deliver your message properly.
Click to expand...

Noted. I apologize that I come across as hostile, I’ve spent too much time going in circles with the CCs and BOTs over in the official thread. But I think it is important to address corporate denialism.

People need to be aware that some of the big names in the skeptic community, including the ‘fathers’ of corporate climate denial, were also involved in the tobacco denial campaign. People need to be able to recognize their tactics so they can distinguish rhetoric from legitimate debate, fact from fiction. Big Tobacco swindled the world for over 40 years. Wouldn’t it be a shame if we didn’t learn our lesson?

Fool me once…
 
#87
#87
Let’s hear what congressman “Smokey Joe” Barton has to say about tobacco and global warming.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/embed/Dj0PYdl99tI#t=537[/youtube]

Poignant to see the late Peter Jennings in action, and remember what it was like when there was at least some tough, probing journalism with a moral compass on mainstream media.




Let’s play a game. Which of these two is actual tobacco industry denial, and which is climate change denial with “tobacco” and related terms substituted:

Exhibit A:

“There is no experimental data to support the hypothesis that smoking causes lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, or chronic bronchitis………any number of things can influence the onset of a disease. The list includes genetics, diet, workplace environment, and stress…….we understand public anxiety about smoking causing disease, but are concerned that many of these much-publicized associations are ill-informed and misleading……….the media continue to uncritically accept and vigorously promote an anti-smoking agenda…….after hundreds of millions of dollars spent on clinical research, and decades of screaming headlines, we have no more certainty today about smoking causing disease than we did decades ago……….if even a small part of the time and money spent trying to link smoking to cancer were spent instead on studying the other causes of cancer, millions of lives could be saved.”

Exhibit B:

“The claim that human activities cause climate change has not been scientifically proven……….it is a reductionist error and not keeping with the current theories of climate science to attempt to assign each temperature change to an exclusive single cause………..the use of results from flawed computer models to frighten people by attributing catastrophic future change to current human activities may be misleading and is highly regrettable……..that emotionalism can override objective analysis is illustrated by the headlines………..despite millions of dollars spent by the government on climate modeling and research, many questions about the relationship between human activities and global temperature change remain unanswered……….indeed, many scientists are becoming concerned that preoccupation with anthropogenic global warming may be both unfounded and dangerous – unfounded because evidence on many critical points is conflicting, dangerous because it diverts attention from other suspected hazards.”
Click to expand...

To see the answer, check out A Well-Documented Strategy

Climate-Science-Deniers.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#88
#88
BartW said:
Noted. I apologize that I come across as hostile, I’ve spent too much time going in circles with the CCs and BOTs over in the official thread. But I think it is important to address corporate denialism.

People need to be aware that some of the big names in the skeptic community, including the ‘fathers’ of corporate climate denial, were also involved in the tobacco denial campaign. People need to be able to recognize their tactics so they can distinguish rhetoric from legitimate debate, fact from fiction. Big Tobacco swindled the world for over 40 years. Wouldn’t it be a shame if we didn’t learn our lesson?

Fool me once…
Click to expand...

First you say skeptics are bad. Then you say there is nothing wrong with skeptics. Now skeptics are bad again. Good Lord man you're a human flip flop.
 
#89
#89
BigOrangeTrain said:
First you say skeptics are bad. Then you say there is nothing wrong with skeptics. Now skeptics are bad again. Good Lord man you're a human flip flop.
Click to expand...
Honest skepticism is good. Denialism masquerading as skepticism is bad. After all this time I have to wonder if you really don't get it or if you're being deliberately obtuse.

And you're really one to talk about flip flopping mr. vaccine 'skeptic'
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#90
#90
BigOrangeTrain said:
First you say skeptics are bad. Then you say there is nothing wrong with skeptics. Now skeptics are bad again. Good Lord man you're a human flip flop.
Click to expand...

Bart's just taking his orders. His order now is to use the tactic, "If you don't believe in AGW then something must be wrong with you." Next, its going to be "Arrest the deniers!"

Last month Adam Weinstein wrote a piece for Gawker.com called "Arrest the Climate-Change Deniers." "Man-made climate change kills a lot of people," he claimed, offering no evidence. "It's going to kill a lot more. We have laws on the books to punish anyone whose lies contribute to people's deaths. It's time to punish the climate-change liars."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#92
#92
BartW said:
How does global warming alarmism give scientists job security? If global warming weren’t real they’d study something else. And if scientists were in it for the money they’d be better off working for the Heartland Institute.

Your second statement highlights the fact that opposition to acting on climate change is political, not scientific.
Click to expand...

I actually didn't say they were in it for the money. So scientists have never used alarmist tactics to raise funding?

I oppose government action for two reasons: (1) The science is inconclusive with regard to how we should respond to the threat of global warming (2) Government is one of the biggest threats to the environment and they are generally inept. Even if they had the right science, I would have no faith in their ability to save us from the threat of global warming.

Let's hope that the government doesn't declare official war on global warming. The war on drugs, poverty, and terrorism have been ineffective and counterproductive.
 
#93
#93
The climate change debate is problematic for a variety of reasons, but, for the sake of argument, let's allow the climate change proponents all of their conclusions up to the final step: between 100-2,000 years from now, towns that are currently on the coast will be submerged, land that is currently cultivated farmland will be useless, the glaciers will melt, and anyone living in sub-tropical climates will have a miserable existence. Let's grant all of that. So what?

There is more land area in Canada than in the United States. Will this land, sans glaciers and extremely cold temperatures, be perfect for farming? Same with north Asia. Will land still be available for human habitation, even if humans must move away from what are now the coasts? Even if humans must move away from the equator? Will a ring of coastal cities hovering around the North Pole replace the easy trade that the ring of coastal cities on the Mediterranean made possible for so many thousands of years?

I'll grant all the costs of climate change to the climate change proponents. But, is it possible that the benefits might vastly outweigh the potential costs? I think it is highly reasonable to suspect they might. And, until that research is done, then not one dime ought to be taken out of the economy in order to stave off climate change.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#94
#94
therealUT said:
The climate change debate is problematic for a variety of reasons, but, for the sake of argument, let's allow the climate change proponents all of their conclusions up to the final step: between 100-2,000 years from now, towns that are currently on the coast will be submerged, land that is currently cultivated farmland will be useless, the glaciers will melt, and anyone living in sub-tropical climates will have a miserable existence. Let's grant all of that. So what?

There is more land area in Canada than in the United States. Will this land, sans glaciers and extremely cold temperatures, be perfect for farming? Same with north Asia. Will land still be available for human habitation, even if humans must move away from what are now the coasts? Even if humans must move away from the equator? Will a ring of coastal cities hovering around the North Pole replace the easy trade that the ring of coastal cities on the Mediterranean made possible for so many thousands of years?

I'll grant all the costs of climate change to the climate change proponents. But, is it possible that the benefits might vastly outweigh the potential costs? I think it is highly reasonable to suspect they might. And, until that research is done, then not one dime ought to be taken out of the economy in order to stave off climate change.
Click to expand...

The planet's been in constant change for billions of years and there is nothing we can do that will change that.
 
#95
#95
Sandvol said:
Bart's just taking his orders. His order now is to use the tactic, "If you don't believe in AGW then something must be wrong with you." Next, its going to be "Arrest the deniers!"

Last month Adam Weinstein wrote a piece for Gawker.com called "Arrest the Climate-Change Deniers." "Man-made climate change kills a lot of people," he claimed, offering no evidence. "It's going to kill a lot more. We have laws on the books to punish anyone whose lies contribute to people's deaths. It's time to punish the climate-change liars."
Click to expand...

Yes, yes, I’m obviously taking orders from the science/government/illuminati to win over Volnation. You guys are critical to the cause.

To clarify, Weinstein says we should arrest the serial misinformers – the shills that know better, but continue to reinforce thoroughly debunked myths and slander the scientific community. He’s not saying we should arrest the average joe who’s been suckered in by denialist arguments. Here’s the article, for anyone interested.

I posted the Torcello story it links a while back. Several lawsuits have already been brought against Exxon and pals, and I suspect they’ll be paying a hefty fine when all is said and done. Probably even more than the tobacco industry, which settled for a cool $200 billion.
 
#96
#96
n_huffhines said:
I actually didn't say they were in it for the money. So scientists have never used alarmist tactics to raise funding?

I oppose government action for two reasons: (1) The science is inconclusive with regard to how we should respond to the threat of global warming (2) Government is one of the biggest threats to the environment and they are generally inept. Even if they had the right science, I would have no faith in their ability to save us from the threat of global warming.

Let's hope that the government doesn't declare official war on global warming. The war on drugs, poverty, and terrorism have been ineffective and counterproductive.
Click to expand...

Can you give some examples of scientists that grossly exaggerated danger to ensure funding?

(1) How so? What’s inconclusive about it? The only way to mitigate global warming is by curbing greenhouse gas emissions. Unless you want to try geoengineering the climate, but that’s a risky proposition.
(2) How so? The government successfully responded to environmental problems like ozone depletion, acid rain, and DDT without crashing the economy. The government hardly even has to be involved. Just replace the income tax with a carbon tax and call it a day. It would even shrink the EPA, as opposed to Obama’s Clean Air Act that necessitates more monitoring, intervention, bureaucracy, etc.
 
 
#97
#97
therealUT said:
The climate change debate is problematic for a variety of reasons, but, for the sake of argument, let's allow the climate change proponents all of their conclusions up to the final step: between 100-2,000 years from now, towns that are currently on the coast will be submerged, land that is currently cultivated farmland will be useless, the glaciers will melt, and anyone living in sub-tropical climates will have a miserable existence. Let's grant all of that. So what?

There is more land area in Canada than in the United States. Will this land, sans glaciers and extremely cold temperatures, be perfect for farming? Same with north Asia. Will land still be available for human habitation, even if humans must move away from what are now the coasts? Even if humans must move away from the equator? Will a ring of coastal cities hovering around the North Pole replace the easy trade that the ring of coastal cities on the Mediterranean made possible for so many thousands of years?

I'll grant all the costs of climate change to the climate change proponents. But, is it possible that the benefits might vastly outweigh the potential costs? I think it is highly reasonable to suspect they might. And, until that research is done, then not one dime ought to be taken out of the economy in order to stave off climate change.
Click to expand...

We undoubtedly will (and already do) see agriculture migrate, but this solution has major limitations. For one, land at high latitudes has little fertile soil. It’s been glaciated for the majority of recent history and vast tracts, such as the Canadian Shield, are basically solid rock. Secondly, that would require a LOT of deforestation and deforestation is a significant contributor of CO2 emissions. Deforestation in Indonesia alone presently accounts for 4% of the world’s annual CO2 emissions. And third, are we really ready to give up the low-mid latitudes, including basically the entire southern hemisphere which doesn’t have much area at high latitudes? A north pole world megalopolis sounds fun and all but… not realistic IMO.

That research has, is, and will continue to be done. Responding to climate change isn't a question of mitigation OR adaptation. It requires mitigation and adaptation.
 
Last edited:
#98
#98
BartW said:
We undoubtedly will see (and already are seeing) agriculture migrate, but this solution has major limitations. For one, land at high latitudes has little fertile soil. It’s been glaciated for the majority of recent history and vast tracts, such as the Canadian Shield, are basically solid rock. Secondly, that would require a LOT of deforestation and deforestation is a significant contributor of CO2 emissions. Deforestation in Indonesia alone presently accounts for 4% of the world’s annual CO2 emissions. And third, are we really ready to give up the low-mid latitudes, including basically the entire southern hemisphere which doesn’t have much area at high latitudes? A north pole world megalopolis sounds fun and all but… not realistic IMO.

That research has, is, and will continue to be done. Responding to climate change isn't a question of mitigation OR adaptation. It will require mitigation and adaptation.
Click to expand...

High latitude soil is not necessarily non-conducive for agriculture. Asserting it as so is flat our wrong. As for deforestation, again, who cares?

Yes, if climate change is happening according to the most dire projections, migration will be mandatory. I can grant change and changes, but the onus is on the proponents to make the case that such changes are bad.
 
#99
#99
therealUT said:
High latitude soil is not necessarily non-conducive for agriculture. Asserting it as so is flat our wrong. As for deforestation, again, who cares?

Yes, if climate change is happening according to the most dire projections, migration will be mandatory. I can grant change and changes, but the onus is on the proponents to make the case that such changes are bad.
Click to expand...

global_soils_map_USDA.jpg


Gelisols
Gelisols are an order in USDA soil taxonomy. They are soils of very cold climates which are defined as containing permafrost within two meters of the soil surface… in most areas where gelisols occur, chemically they are not highly fertile because nutrients, especially calcium and potassium, are very easily leached above the permafrost. The permafrost greatly restricts the engineering use of gelisols, as large structures (e.g. buildings) subside as the frozen earth thaws when they are put in place.
Click to expand...

Entisols
In USDA soil taxonomy, entisols are defined as soils that do not show any profile development other than an A horizon. An entisol has no diagnostic horizons, and most are basically unaltered from their parent material, which can be unconsolidated sediment or rock.
Click to expand...

Podzol
In soil science, podzols (known as Spodosols in China and the United States of America, Espodossolos in Brazil, and Podosols in Australia) are the typical soils of coniferous, or boreal forests…Podzols are able to occur on almost any parent material but generally derive from either quartz-rich sands and sandstones or sedimentary debris from magmatic rocks, provided there is high precipitation.[3] Most Podzols are poor soils for agriculture due to the sandy portion, resulting in a low level of moisture and nutrients. Some are sandy and excessively drained. Others have shallow rooting zones and poor drainage due to subsoil cementation. A low pH further compounds issues, along with phosphate deficiencies and aluminium toxicity
Click to expand...

Not only would deforestation emit a ton of CO2 we'd also release a bunch of CO2 and methane from melting permafrost (a tipping point). The very act of moving our agriculture would cause a huge acceleration of climate change, thereby ensuring that the regions in question would quickly become unsuitable for agriculture, if they weren't unsuitable already. The whole notion is self defeating.
 
#100
#100
BartW said:
Can you give some examples of scientists that grossly exaggerated danger to ensure funding?

(1) How so? What’s inconclusive about it? The only way to mitigate global warming is by curbing greenhouse gas emissions. Unless you want to try geoengineering the climate, but that’s a risky proposition.
(2) How so? The government successfully responded to environmental problems like ozone depletion, acid rain, and DDT without crashing the economy. The government hardly even has to be involved. Just replace the income tax with a carbon tax and call it a day. It would even shrink the EPA, as opposed to Obama’s Clean Air Act that necessitates more monitoring, intervention, bureaucracy, etc.
 
Click to expand...

DDT? You've got to be kidding me.

The air and the water was getting cleaner before the EPA got involved. The rate of improvement went unchanged after the Clean Air and Water Act was signed into law.

You don't think creationists grossly exaggerate their evidence? I mean, a lot of them think that bats are proof positive of intelligent design.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top