Weather Channel Founder on Global Warming

[Nick]

You really have no fucking clue what you are talking about, do you?

[Sylvus]

anyone who dares to disagree is stupid. Have a nice night.

On what basis do you have to disagree? Can you post a scientific study that shows man-made emissions will in no way cause harm to the planet in the near or distant future? I've read plenty from Animale alone that show man-made emissions will be catastrophic in the very near future. Can you provide opposing view points, or are you limited to your ignorant one-line responses?

You really don't see what you're doing here? You've created an imaginary, unproveable creature and now are taunting me to show my proof he doesn't exist. Are you fucking serious? Oh my god.

Except it's not imaginary and unprovable, there's science behind it. Vetiria was asking you for science to disprove science.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

anyone who dares to disagree is stupid. Have a nice night.

On what basis do you have to disagree? Can you post a scientific study that shows man-made emissions will in no way cause harm to the planet in the near or distant future? I've read plenty from Animale alone that show man-made emissions will be catastrophic in the very near future. Can you provide opposing view points, or are you limited to your ignorant one-line responses?

You really don't see what you're doing here? You've created an imaginary, unproveable creature and now are taunting me to show my proof he doesn't exist. Are you fucking serious? Oh my god.

Except it's not imaginary and unprovable, there's science behind it. Vetiria was asking you for science to disprove science.

There's no science that this is 1) caused by man , 2) an URGENT CRISIS, 3) can be solved by man.

[Fash]

No, I think it's half man, and half bear-pig!

[noel]

This thread is a perfect example of why Mid and Funkmasterr shouldn't be allowed to post in the grown-up forum anymore.

[Somali]

You guys are all asking for science that may reinforce the point of view that man made global warming isn't all its cracked up to be. I posted a link to a good source of info for these arguments earlier. You are accusing Mid of being blind to the other argument and disregarding the other side> Have you guys even looked at the information here? At all?
I'll say it again, if you want to dismiss it as propaganda, go for it. Perhaps all the scientists from the second link have been bought out by the oil companies. Dismissing it prior to reading it is the same thing you are accusing Midnyte of though. Some of them even show the data they use to derive the statistics. Its not as much as I would like, but then again the "world is ending" group doesn't provide nearly as much detail as I would like either.

[quote="Somali"]http://www.theglobalwarminghoax.com/

Dismiss it all as propaganda if you will, but some of it is an interesting read.

Some of the scientists who have retracted previous global warming thoughts/statements.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? ... &Issue_id=[/quote

]

[Funkmasterr]

This thread is a perfect example of why Mid and Funkmasterr shouldn't be allowed to post in the grown-up forum anymore.

Get over yourself noel, you're a fucking asshole and you are no where near as intelligent, wise or witty as you think you are.

I want to clarify something for the ignorant gLOLbal warming bandwagon folks here. You do not have scientific FACTS/PROOF that we are having a big enough effect to warrant the response to this, you have scientific theories, and there are plenty of scientists that don't agree. Actually, I just read something (will post if I can remember where it was) stating how an increasing number of scientists that were on board with the global warming thing are actually saying that they no longer agree it is what it's being made out to be.

Because you do not have any facts (I can define fact for you according to the dictionary if it would help), you cannot expect myself or anyone else who opposes you to post facts.

Unless someone can give hard evidence that because of this, mankind will be wiped out within the next 500-1000 years (I am very confident we will all be dead by our own hands, or for some other unknown reason before 1000 years pass..) I have no interest in humoring global warming as anything other than a scare tactic, at all.

Like I said before, I am all about us being more environmentally friendly JUST BECAUSE. What people don't realize is there is research going into ways for us to be more environmentally friendly, and has been for a long time. Would it be more if the oil companies didn't have our government by the nuts? Of course it would be.

What I am not for is people using this THEORY as a scare tactic to get people to push to break our dependency on oil. If you can not convince people that we need to do this without coming up with some bs theory, then you aren't trying hard enough. And the people in the government that the oil companies have in their back pockets aren't going to give half a shit about any of this global warming crap, they just care about their money & power.

[noel]

This thread is a perfect example of why Mid and Funkmasterr shouldn't be allowed to post in the grown-up forum anymore.

Get over yourself noel, you're a fucking asshole and you are no where near as intelligent, wise or witty as you think you are.

I only have to be more intelligent, wise and witty than you in the context of this forum. Scoreboard.

[Fash]

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/stor ... 97,00.html

Bob Carter
* Professor Bob Carter is an environmental scientist at James Cook University who studies ancient climate change
June 17, 2007 11:00pm

...

The salient facts are these. First, the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2.

Second, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements, if corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, show little if any global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent).

Third, there are strong indications from solar studies that Earth's current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades.

How then is it possible for Griffin to assert so boldly that human-caused global warming is happening?

Well, he is in good company for similar statements have been made recently by several Western heads of state at the G8 summit meeting. For instance, German Chancellor Angela Merkel asserts climate change (i.e. global warming) "is also essentially caused by humankind".

In fact, there is every doubt whether any global warming at all is occurring at the moment, let alone human-caused warming.

For leading politicians to be asserting to the contrary indicates something is very wrong with their chain of scientific advice, for they are clearly being deceived. That this should be the case is an international political scandal of high order which, in turn, raises the question of where their advice is coming from.

In Australia, the advice trail leads from government agencies such as the CSIRO and the Australian Greenhouse Office through to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of the United Nations.

As leading economist David Henderson has pointed out, it is extremely dangerous for an unelected and unaccountable body like the IPCC to have a monopoly on climate policy advice to governments. And even more so because, at heart, the IPCC is a political and not a scientific agency.

Australia does not ask the World Bank to set its annual budget and neither should it allow the notoriously alarmist IPCC to set its climate policy.

It is past time for those who have deceived governments and misled the public regarding dangerous human-caused global warming to be called to account. Aided by hysterical posturing by green NGOs, their actions have led to the cornering of government on the issue and the likely implementation of futile emission policies that will impose direct extra costs on every household and enterprise in Australia to no identifiable benefit.

Not only do humans not dominate Earth's current temperature trend but the likelihood is that further large sums of public money are shortly going to be committed to, theoretically, combat warming when cooling is the more likely short-term climatic eventuality.

In one of the more expensive ironies of history, the expenditure of more than $US50 billion ($60 billion) on research into global warming since 1990 has failed to demonstrate any human-caused climate trend, let alone a dangerous one.

Yet that expenditure will pale into insignificance compared with the squandering of money that is going to accompany the introduction of a carbon trading or taxation system.

The costs of thus expiating comfortable middle class angst are, of course, going to be imposed preferentially upon the poor and underprivileged.

$50 billion into RESEARCH of global warming??... Why not $50 billion into NEW ENERGY? Idiots...



http://canadafreepress.com/2007/clydesdale050807.htm

This planet has been here over four billion years. We've been here for a hundred thousand. We've been engaged in heavy industry for two hundred years. Two hundred as opposed to 4.5 billion!

Are we really so conceited and arrogant that we believe some plastic bags, a bunch of aluminum beer cans and light bulbs are going to put this globe into jeopardy?

This planet has been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, solar flares, sun-spots, magnetic storms, pole reversals, planetary floods, worldwide fires, tidal waves, wind and water erosion, cosmic rays, ice ages, and hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets, asteroids, and meteors.

And it's still happening! Hundreds of active volcanoes today spewing millions of tons of sulphur and CO2 into the atmosphere every minute, make any 'man made' contribution insignificant. Mt. St. Helens in one burp spewed more pollutants than all human produced industrial emissions over a period of who knows how long. But I'm sure some 'scientist' will tell us even if we don't ask.

These fear mongering luddites are a well oiled industry and a very profitable one to the propagators of it. Books, papers, 'studies', appearances, interviews, donations, speeches, articles, columns, foundation grants, government grants, 'non profit' tax exempt salaries and web sites with 'donate buttons'. And, as long as it can keep a duped media on side, it will continue to be profitable.

I am no Paul Watson [co-founder of Greenpeace] fan, but in a moment of rare truth, when asked by a reporter what made Greenpeace so successful, he replied:

"It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.... You are what the media define you to be. Greenpeace became a myth and fund generating machine." ("Forbes", Nov. 1991)

And, do you ever wonder, that when these duped myrmidons drag out the..., "two thousand scientists say"............., that they don't name these 'scientists'? Media types are big on this and because they have no expertise of their own they will spin anything that they think may bring ratings. This "human induced earth warming" myth is simply the latest 'flavor of the month' that has become the trendy fashion of the times. And like all fashions it too will pass. But we may have to pay a high price before this one dies.

...

And,by the way, neither Gore nor Suzuki are climate scientists! They are presenters!.....And making a lot of money; which of course, is the purpose of the exercise. They don't care about the environment......anymore than a TV evangelist cares whether he heals your herpes as long as you contribute to the collection plate;.... in Gore/Suzuki's case the 'donate' button on a web site.

There is no shortage of respectable and intelligent people doubting the motives and the interpretation of climate information behind the global warming movement.

You are being fanatical, sorry to say... Midnyte is right.

None of us 'doubters' is against energy independence, leaving foreign oil sources, or treating the environment better. Get that through your fucking skulls!

[Funkmasterr]

Fash, you hear those crickets?

[Sylvus]

None of us 'doubters' is against energy independence, leaving foreign oil sources, or treating the environment better. Get that through your fucking skulls!

So why is there an argument? What goal do you think the 'believers' are shooting for? If you're for treating the environment better, which is pretty much all that the global-warming folk are asking you to do (feel free to correct me if I've missed something), why do you get all up in arms when other people suggest that it's possible that we are permanently impacting the earth's climate in a negative way?

The steps necessary to prevent or delay global warming are the exact same steps that it would take for energy independence, leaving foreign oil sources, and treating the environment better. What's with the gnashing of teeth? It sounds like you just have an issue with semantics.

[Fash]

None of us 'doubters' is against energy independence, leaving foreign oil sources, or treating the environment better. Get that through your fucking skulls!

So why is there an argument? What goal do you think the 'believers' are shooting for? If you're for treating the environment better, which is pretty much all that the global-warming folk are asking you to do (feel free to correct me if I've missed something), why do you get all up in arms when other people suggest that it's possible that we are permanently impacting the earth's climate in a negative way?

The steps necessary to prevent or delay global warming are the exact same steps that it would take for energy independence, leaving foreign oil sources, and treating the environment better. What's with the gnashing of teeth? It sounds like you just have an issue with semantics.

Semantics is very important. I'm sure you disagree with and attack the reason of going into Iraq for WMD's, when that probably wasn't even close to the reason why we went in. In the same vein, I strongly disagree with the as-yet unproven reason of man made global warming.

I want energy independence because we're beholden to a conglomerate of corrupt OPEC nations who have the ability to bend us over a barrel (hah!) at their whim.

I want to treat the environment better because it just makes sense. Managing your output of pollutants reduces effects to everything around you... Lawsuits and regulations have helped in this regard due to diseases and other effects this has caused in the past.

It would be better for us as a country, and as a world, to do these things... but it's the reason why and where the money is going that is the problem. Creating a market for carbon future trading is not going to solve anything, and it's only going to create another avenue for rich people to get richer. Simply put, money should not be going to global warming research companies, money should be going to companies seeking actual progress in energy independence and cleaner processes for creating said energy (and applied across all industry). We should start building the infrastructure to support our future now, and promote a revolution of sorts... in the media and in the government... to attack the oil conglomerates and remove their grip from our wallets and our future.

The man-made crisis is corruption and greed, not global warming... and I want the blame placed squarely where it belongs... as do you, in different circumstances..

edit: adding:

It is quite possible that kowtowing to the global warming crowd, without removing the corruption that exists in our system right now, will lead us nowhere closer to a cleaner environment or energy independence.

[Funkmasterr]

Well said fash, that last sentence pretty much summed it up for me. We all know how I feel about the issue by now, but another side point that you mentioned is that people are using this as another political blame game - and that is retarded on a massive scale.

This issue needs to be approached from a "we all need to come up with a plan to better ourselves", not a "republicans oil companies and are going to destroy the world with their greed" thing. Not that I'm not saying that that second statement might not hold some weight for some people (I'm not looking to debate that), but turning this into another political pissing match like they are already effectively doing is taking away from the real issue that people should be focusing on, and that makes them all fucking hypocrites.

[Animale]

The thing is we are doing an experiment on our planet with the continued massive release of CO2 into our atmosphere. Creating ways to study this experiment are why the monies should be spent in this area. If it turns out to "not be a big deal" isn't it better to have well-understood means as to say why, rather than just guessing. I tend to think it is better to over-study an issue scientifically than be left with your pants down and not having a means to study it if/when the problems arise. Even IF our CO2 release turns out to be insignificant, the creation of a global climate monitoring/study system is a worthwhile goal, better done sooner than later.

The other issue is, of course, carbon "neutral" or negative energy creation. Now, I also agree that carbon future trading is just a means to make people money. In fact, it's the same people who are now reaping the rewards of our fossil fuel based lifestyles that will reap the most rewards from this. However, in the short term it would actually do some good, by creating a monetary incentive to develop engineering solutions for conservation/recycling/etc. that would otherwise not have any incentive. In this case, the price of fossil fuels will not drive lesser usage of carbon-rich fuels, as the price of coal (the highest CO2 releasing fossil fuel) will not be going up significantly in the near future (we have LOTS of coal left). So, one of the few ways to monetarily force industrial scale conservation is to create an artificial market for carbon release. Does it have problems, yes. Is it an ultimate solution, no.

Now, ultimately we do need to find NEW solutions for conversion of solar energy to usable fuels. The current catalysts available to convert electricity to fuels (water splitting) are VERY expensive (platinum being the main one, ruthenium, iridium, and palladium also can be used) and quite frankly there isn't enough of these elements on the planet to support the level of application we need. Cheaper, more abundant materials will need to be used - and right now there is no technique that has been discovered to utilize such materials (silica, manganese, iron, cobalt, etc.). That is where we need to focus our energies, utilization of "base" materials for solar energy applications.

Again, look at Nathan Lewis's talk that I linked above. It outlines the problem, and points out that solar (or fusion) are the only possible means that meet the demands of scale. All the rest will be a piece of the pie, but only small niche markets can be served by all of them (wind, hydro, geothermal, tidal, etc.). We need to go solar is a big way, and right now the solution doesn't exist, even in a lab.

Now, I agree that some of the crisis mongering is driven by greed - but greed is the essence of capitalism. This is what happens when marketing geniuses see an opportunity to make money. Right now green is not just the color of money - of course it being abused. But that doesn't mean that climate study, alternative energy research, and basic sciences need to be dismissed.

The man-made crisis is corruption and greed, not global warming... and I want the blame placed squarely where it belongs... as do you, in different circumstances (bush)

The main problem with this is that THE SAME PEOPLE are the ones who are feeding the frenzy on BOTH SIDES. The major energy corporations, the car companies, all of them are seeking to preserve their piece of the pie by playing both sides (because there is MONEY to be made on both sides right now). These interests are also those who got us into Iraq by the by, and will continue to wield a large hand in our government into the foreseeable future because they control the essence of our economy.

The IPCC has been used by these interests to play both sides of the coin, and the scientists who write their reports are NOT to blame on this. When politicians get a hold of these reports is when they get diluted/distorted. The vast majority of the "errors" in the report that are harped upon by it's opponents were placed there by the political arm, and most of those are ones who soft-pedal the scientific results.

Gah, this is going on too long... I'll stop now.
Animale

[Fash]

The thing is we are doing an experiment on our planet with the continued massive release of CO2 into our atmosphere. Creating ways to study this experiment are why the monies should be spent in this area. If it turns out to "not be a big deal" isn't it better to have well-understood means as to say why, rather than just guessing. I tend to think it is better to over-study an issue scientifically than be left with your pants down and not having a means to study it if/when the problems arise. Even IF our CO2 release turns out to be insignificant, the creation of a global climate monitoring/study system is a worthwhile goal, better done sooner than later.

I might understand this argument, if we actually were releasing MASSIVE amounts of CO2 compared with natural occurrences.

Plus... we don't actually have the ability to study this in any controlled fashion. The planet is too big and there are too many data points, many of which we have no way of monitoring, that factor into the overall climate that we simply cannot at this time accurately measure or predict anything meaningful. The fact that there are people predicting warming and other people predicting cooling ought to explain our profound inability.

edited to add:

Scientists rarely throw their arms up in the air and refuse to make a judgment. They take what they have, and they proclaim something, one way or the other... That's their job and that's how they get paid. Butter is good, Butter is bad, Eggs are good, Eggs are bad, Fat people die quicker, Fat people live longer, etc.

Also, back on the original topic, here's a segment of an interview Glenn Beck had with John Coleman today, the founder of the weather channel:

COLEMAN: It's good to talk to you. It's great to be on your program. I, too, have made a quest for truth. After all, I've been a TV meteorologist for 55 years. So when I started hearing about this global warming thing, about seven, eight years ago, I decided I better really study up on this and understand what was going on so I could be expert for my viewers.

GLENN: Yeah.

COLEMAN: And what I found was that there isn't any significant global warming going on. There isn't any significant connection between man's pollution and any global warming. The frenzy is totally manufactured. The global warming crisis is as phony as a $2 bill and it's time to put it to test.

GLENN: Are you -- I mean, I understand politicians. I even understand General Electric. While I'm disgusted by the lust for money and they are willing to embrace anything just for the lust of money, I've got to tell you, science and scientists are probably the worst on this. I mean, the whole --

COLEMAN: Trust me, Glenn, the field of meteorology and climatology, the Earth sciences, the people who really should be putting this to the test have truly caved in on it. And that is shocking to me. Here are people who live by the truth and somehow they have let their personal and environmental agendas and political agendas get in the way of peer review which should have put a stop to this early on. It's back to itself now to where there's this huge cabal of scientists, environmentalists, politicians and business people who have created this -- and media people who have created this incredible global frenzy, 20,000 people went out and protest in Australia global warming over the weekend. This is incredible how out of control this has become.

GLENN: John, give me the reason. I mean, scientists should have learned from, I mean, science was locked into --

COLEMAN: Look, here's the deal. So you decide you are going to be a research scientist in meteorology and you spent 10 years on university campuses obtaining your degrees and getting your position. Now you do a study of climate shift and let's say that the results of your study is you find that man's pollution is having little impact on the climate and that the climate is not changing much. You've wasted your life because that study doesn't mean anything. It's not news. It's not earth-shattering. It doesn't cause any -- it's not a call to action. If you do a study, you've got to come up with dramatic results in order for your study to be noticed, to be published, to be quoted in the press in order to receive awards, in order to get research grants, more money and obtain a position at a higher institution.

GLENN: Well, are you saying that they are just --

COLEMAN: So these scientists, I'm afraid, let their career decisions influence the results of their -- it is very clear, it is very clear that the science and the basic cornerstone research study on global warming was manipulated. It was massaged. They did whatever they had to do to the numbers they had to come out with this famous hockey stick graph that showed temperatures suddenly escalating over the last 30 years. And that should have been stopped by peer review but instead the other scientists seemed to accept it because it helped them with their environmental and political agendas and it helped get the money flowing into their research grants. So this research and that research all flowed off of it and now we have this whole industry of global warming research funded by billions of dollars with thousands of scientists paying their mortgages, getting their awards, traveling to meetings and, you know, we're about to get the big IPCC final report in the next few weeks. They are all meeting starting today in Valencia, Spain, and it's just way out of control.

GLENN: Well, I know that they are talking now about Time magazine Man of the Year is probably going to be Al Gore.

COLEMAN: Al Gore, this is an amazing thing. A politician -- believe me, this global warming shouldn't be about politics, it shouldn't be about environmentalism. It's not about religion. That's something you believe in. It's science, the science of meteorology. Here's a politician who has gotten an Emmy, an Oscar and Nobel Prize.

GLENN: He also got a Grammy.

COLEMAN: And has made an incredible fortune, by the way, by global warming.

GLENN: I put a chart in my book on the chapter on global warming that I find absolutely amazing and I'm not a scientist but when you look into the other things that could be causing the Earth to go up in temperature other than just, you know, this is the way it works, you look at the solar activity and you compare that with the temperature rise and fall and it is staggering. Do you think there's anything to solar activity and global warming?

COLEMAN: I have to study more, but Rhodes Fairbridge of Columbia University who is a giant in astronomy has just come out with a whole new dissertation on how the major planet's orbit around the sun create a gravitational pull on the sun that intensifies or diminishes the solar output and creates solar cycles and the solar system that have great impact on our climate on Earth. This is the latest on this, and I have to study and read the whole paper before I know if I truly accept it. But the point is that we have a lot of research that have shown sun cycles as being a basic reason for climate change and to -- let's flip the coin. How about manmade activity? Well, we talk about our big greenhouse gas, our carbon dioxide. And if you take 100,000 molecules of air, of our atmosphere, 100,000 of them, only 38 of them are going to be carbon dioxide. I mean, it's a trace gas. And to have the future of the planet hinge on that seems very farfetched.

GLENN: How do you feel when Heidi Cullen, who is on the network you started, the Weather Channel, says, and I quote, if a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them the seal of approval?

COLEMAN: Well, she has a right to make her statement and the Weather Channel has a right to do whatever it wishes to do. We have freedom of speech and freedom of position, and I have a right to take my position. That's fine.

GLENN: But not really. She's basically saying you should lose --

COLEMAN: Now, I would be horrified if the AMS took her suggestion to heart, but I don't think it would. But, you know, the AMS is political like any other organization.

...

GLENN: When you see something like NBC doing green week, a wholly owned subsidiary of General Electric --

COLEMAN: This is really what put me over the top.

GLENN: Is it?

COLEMAN: I have been posting material on global warming on my site, but this particular rant, I will call it, letter as it were, this blog, whatever you want to call it, this came when I watched the pregame show of the NFL football a week ago by candlelight.

GLENN: Yeah, yeah.

COLEMAN: I said, this is it, we're over the edge, we've gone over the top. This is beyond any belief and, of course, on your television affiliate network --

GLENN: Oh, yeah, I know. The planet's in peril.

COLEMAN: Planet in Peril is driving me to extraction. Between those two and all of everything that was part of it, that was kind of the end.

GLENN: Well, I appreciate your candidness, John, and we'll follow your story because, you know, I'm waiting to see how they discredit you or, you know, what happens in the future.

[Animale]

So because the problem is too big we shouldn't study it? That's not how science works big boy. You start studying it in ways we CAN do now, and continue to expand our knowledge until we can handle it. Not look at a problem and say "eh, too big" and stay away.

That's just defeatist, status quo supporting bullshit.

Animale

[Funkmasterr]

Basically animale, what it sounds like you and others are saying now that some evidence has been presented that conflicts with what you believe - is something along the lines of "ok so what if global warming isn't occurring, we should still work on these things anyway."

Precisely! No one here is arguing that, we are arguing about the theory that is global warming and the lack of evidence supporting it. Doing all the things you have mentioned is fine with me, but not if they are pushed on us under the guise of global warming to scare people that would otherwise ignore the issue into helping/contributing.

[Fash]

So because the problem is too big we shouldn't study it? That's not how science works big boy. You start studying it in ways we CAN do now, and continue to expand our knowledge until we can handle it. Not look at a problem and say "eh, too big" and stay away.

That's just defeatist, status quo supporting bullshit.

Animale

Nonsense... I am not supporting the status quo, and nothing in my posts could lead you to believe that.

However, I am not interested in science flawed from the start (and we have a LOT of that, not just in the climate area)

[Animale]

There is scientific debate on the issue, but it's really been blown out of proportion by the folks who oppose doing anything about CO2 release because it'll directly alter their bottom line. Scientists pretty much always disagree, but on this point the scientific consensus is that we are causing the global CO2 rise (not really debatable) and that this will in turn result in global warming (different models have dramatically different results on this point). Since we do not have a control or a realistic system to do other experiments on, there will always be disagreement among scientists who utilize different systems to try and project into the future. No control = profound disagreements. This is NOT a bad thing by the way.

Now, even with those disagreements the vast majority of climate model systems are predicting global temperature rise within the next 50-100 years. Again, there are outliers and not all the information is known, but if we waited for the sure thing when predicting the future, we have to wait for it to happen. I'm not going to bother with an analogy here because they just don't work very well, but basically if we're not going to bother following what our models tell us in directing policy - why even bother with listening to anything predictive about the future. Economic models are similar, they almost never come to pass exactly as described, but they are used all the time in business and government to direct policy. I just don't see how this is any different.

With this in mind, the "scientific disagreement" points brought up by the energy company's economists and their ilk are merely smokescreens to mask their true intentions - maintenance of the status quo so they can remain in control of the economy in a manner they understand. It's all about the Benjamins, and for them anything that can alter their stranglehold is a threat. We need to monetize change for it to happen, normal market forces are not going to lower our level of CO2 release and if we don't we are going to end up in a territory far removed from what we understand.
For instance:
Q? How much CO2 can the ocean absorb? There is some recent suggestion that it is about saturated (data from the antarctic says that it's CO2 uptake rate is slowing)
Q? How does higher CO2 rates change plant growth? There is evidence it is faster in some areas, and slower in others largely due to availability of water (more water = higher growth, less water = slower growth relative to "normal" CO2 conditions).

These and others still remain to be studied in detail, and more data is needed. But, global CO2 levels are increasing, it is caused by us, and on that there is only data - no debate needed (C12 to C13 ratios, etc. etc.). Now, I'm not comfortable doing a non-reversable experiment on my planet - especially when the consensus of the scientific community is that this experiment will be a negative result on my condition.

That's just common sense.
Animale

[Zaelath]

Basically animale, what it sounds like you and others are saying now that some evidence has been presented that conflicts with what you believe - is something along the lines of "ok so what if global warming isn't occurring, we should still work on these things anyway."

Precisely! No one here is arguing that, we are arguing about the theory that is global warming and the lack of evidence supporting it. Doing all the things you have mentioned is fine with me, but not if they are pushed on us under the guise of global warming to scare people that would otherwise ignore the issue into helping/contributing.

There was no "evidence" posted. We had an opinion piece from a scientist, a rant on a blog from a complete idiot, and an interview with a weatherman.

BTW, for those of you that don't see how awesome John Coleman's credentials are: Ted Turner founded CNN, therefore Ted Turner is an expert on international terrorism. Wait, that's completely fucking stupid!

As to scare mongering:

if you're right, guess what happens? You get to gloat that being a self obsessed consumer was the right thing to do.

If the global warming people are right, guess what happens? We all get fucked and no one gets to gloat.

[Fash]

BTW, for those of you that don't see how awesome John Coleman's credentials are: Ted Turner founded CNN, therefore Ted Turner is an expert on international terrorism. Wait, that's completely fucking stupid!

CNN is a terrorist organization? I knew it!

I would likely respect his opinion on news networks, however. I wouldn't necessarily agree with it, but I wouldn't completely disavow it.

As to scare mongering:
if you're right, guess what happens? You get to gloat that being a self obsessed consumer was the right thing to do.
If the global warming people are right, guess what happens? We all get fucked and no one gets to gloat.

Considering we're still talking about taking most of the actions they support, it will be a wash... except we won't have done it for the wrong reasons. (keep thinking iraq and wmd's)

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

I guess the ends justify means......sometimes. This thread has been a real eye opener for me. I always knew this was the case for many of the fanatics on this board, but it's finally in writing. Best thread of 2007.

[Funkmasterr]

Basically animale, what it sounds like you and others are saying now that some evidence has been presented that conflicts with what you believe - is something along the lines of "ok so what if global warming isn't occurring, we should still work on these things anyway."

Precisely! No one here is arguing that, we are arguing about the theory that is global warming and the lack of evidence supporting it. Doing all the things you have mentioned is fine with me, but not if they are pushed on us under the guise of global warming to scare people that would otherwise ignore the issue into helping/contributing.

There was no "evidence" posted. We had an opinion piece from a scientist, a rant on a blog from a complete idiot, and an interview with a weatherman.

BTW, for those of you that don't see how awesome John Coleman's credentials are: Ted Turner founded CNN, therefore Ted Turner is an expert on international terrorism. Wait, that's completely fucking stupid!

As to scare mongering:

if you're right, guess what happens? You get to gloat that being a self obsessed consumer was the right thing to do.

If the global warming people are right, guess what happens? We all get fucked and no one gets to gloat.

Evidence was the wrong word for me to use, and I think you know what I meant.

2 - your analogy for John Coleman -> Ted Turner is silly. I think if you did a little digging into John Coleman's credentials you would probably find that he knows more than you're giving him credit for. Calling him "some weatherman" is just plain dumb.

It's just silly to me how you are so willing to throw countless resources at an issue that might not even exist. Am I saying we should just sit on our asses and wait to see what happens? Of course not, but call it what it is.

[Zaelath]

Terrorism is to news as global warming is to weather. I could explain the difference between them and explain what temporal scale means if you like, but really, if I need to you're just being obtuse.

I don't buy "the end justifies the means" and I also don't buy that we will "do enough anyway because of economic forces". It's an interesting theory, but it doesn't pass the laugh test.

[Zaelath]

2 - your analogy for John Coleman -> Ted Turner is silly. I think if you did a little digging into John Coleman's credentials you would probably find that he knows more than you're giving him credit for. Calling him "some weatherman" is just plain dumb.

It's just silly to me how you are so willing to throw countless resources at an issue that might not even exist. Am I saying we should just sit on our asses and wait to see what happens? Of course not, but call it what it is.

If he has better credentials feel free to introduce him with them, but the idea that "the founder of the weather channel" is an expert on something that is only tangentially related to weather is naive. Hell, he doesn't even have to be an expert on weather to found the weather channel.

And no, I don't need to find out if he's a meterologist or anything else to know that appellation being used to lend credibility in this case is ridiculous.

[Funkmasterr]

2 - your analogy for John Coleman -> Ted Turner is silly. I think if you did a little digging into John Coleman's credentials you would probably find that he knows more than you're giving him credit for. Calling him "some weatherman" is just plain dumb.

It's just silly to me how you are so willing to throw countless resources at an issue that might not even exist. Am I saying we should just sit on our asses and wait to see what happens? Of course not, but call it what it is.

If he has better credentials feel free to introduce him with them, but the idea that "the founder of the weather channel" is an expert on something that is only tangentially related to weather is naive. Hell, he doesn't even have to be an expert on weather to found the weather channel.

And no, I don't need to find out if he's a meterologist or anything else to know that appellation being used to lend credibility in this case is ridiculous.

I am unaware of the credentials he has, the point I was making is; everyone in the thread is citing scientists research as the reason they believe this. But then when someone cites another source from a scientist that disagrees with the global warming theory, they are immediately dismissed as "some scientest" or "some weatherman". I'm just saying, maybe humor the idea that you have been mislead? Who would be better to mislead you on something that you don't fully understand than someone who does very well (scientists.)

[Animale]

The thing is Mid, the means in this case are a broad approach to help people understand the problem. There are many reason why looking for a new energy source and studying climate change is a necessary goal. For many people, all they understand is money - so one needs to speak their language in order to get heard. For others, they understand the altruistic approach, so one needs to speak their language in order to be heard. If this is "ends justifies the means," I guess I have that confused with "persuasive discussions/argumentation." No lieing here, although I do think that a lot of the evidence has been "packaged" in a manner that is a bit misleading - but most science has to be packaged in that way for non-scientists to be able to grok it.

It's all for the same goal, however - lowering the emissions of CO2 from mankind to avoid doing an uncontrolled experiment on the planet earth, the results of which are not completely understood but early data and modeling suggests that this experiment could result in monumental changes for civilization as we know it. In a way, the success of Mr. Gore's movie/movement has backfired as people like you find opportunities to poke and prod because they don't politically agree with him. IFor many, it would be the same with me if Mr. Bush was on this side of the coin (although I was following the science on this long before Mr. Gore's movie).

Anyway Mid, get off your fucking high horse. On this issue, you are a stick in the mud who refuses to look at the evidence, refuses to even consider the ramifications of that (supporting the undeniably unsustainable status quo), and refuses to even get in a discussion other than poking a stick at it. I hope you get enlightened.

"Ends justify the means," only if the ends aren't morally outrageous themselves (i.e. war, death, famine). Stretching analogies to fit situations that they don't exactly fit is not exactly a capital crime.
Animale

[Zaelath]

2 - your analogy for John Coleman -> Ted Turner is silly. I think if you did a little digging into John Coleman's credentials you would probably find that he knows more than you're giving him credit for. Calling him "some weatherman" is just plain dumb.

It's just silly to me how you are so willing to throw countless resources at an issue that might not even exist. Am I saying we should just sit on our asses and wait to see what happens? Of course not, but call it what it is.

If he has better credentials feel free to introduce him with them, but the idea that "the founder of the weather channel" is an expert on something that is only tangentially related to weather is naive. Hell, he doesn't even have to be an expert on weather to found the weather channel.

And no, I don't need to find out if he's a meterologist or anything else to know that appellation being used to lend credibility in this case is ridiculous.

I am unaware of the credentials he has, the point I was making is; everyone in the thread is citing scientists research as the reason they believe this. But then when someone cites another source from a scientist that disagrees with the global warming theory, they are immediately dismissed as "some scientest" or "some weatherman". I'm just saying, maybe humor the idea that you have been mislead? Who would be better to mislead you on something that you don't fully understand than someone who does very well (scientists.)

That would be because the weight of scientific opinion is behind this theory, digging up a scientist that wants to make a name for himself by taking the opposing view is not that difficult. I could find you a scientist that will tell you Minnesotans are genetically inferior because 200 years of inbreeding has made them all pale, chubby and slow. Would you immediately do a 180 on your opinion? I don't think so.

BTW, given we've established that Coleman doesn't have any known credentials, I'm going to go ahead and dismiss him as "some weatherman" all I like. Personally, I think attempting to award him eminence based on a "hunch" is about the dumbest thing I've ever head of.

[Funkmasterr]

2 - your analogy for John Coleman -> Ted Turner is silly. I think if you did a little digging into John Coleman's credentials you would probably find that he knows more than you're giving him credit for. Calling him "some weatherman" is just plain dumb.

It's just silly to me how you are so willing to throw countless resources at an issue that might not even exist. Am I saying we should just sit on our asses and wait to see what happens? Of course not, but call it what it is.

If he has better credentials feel free to introduce him with them, but the idea that "the founder of the weather channel" is an expert on something that is only tangentially related to weather is naive. Hell, he doesn't even have to be an expert on weather to found the weather channel.

And no, I don't need to find out if he's a meterologist or anything else to know that appellation being used to lend credibility in this case is ridiculous.

I am unaware of the credentials he has, the point I was making is; everyone in the thread is citing scientists research as the reason they believe this. But then when someone cites another source from a scientist that disagrees with the global warming theory, they are immediately dismissed as "some scientest" or "some weatherman". I'm just saying, maybe humor the idea that you have been mislead? Who would be better to mislead you on something that you don't fully understand than someone who does very well (scientists.)

That would be because the weight of scientific opinion is behind this theory, digging up a scientist that wants to make a name for himself by taking the opposing view is not that difficult. I could find you a scientist that will tell you Minnesotans are genetically inferior because 200 years of inbreeding has made them all pale, chubby and slow. Would you immediately do a 180 on your opinion? I don't think so.

BTW, given we've established that Coleman doesn't have any known credentials, I'm going to go ahead and dismiss him as "some weatherman" all I like. Personally, I think attempting to award him eminence based on a "hunch" is about the dumbest thing I've ever head of.

I wasn't attempting to award him anything, I explained the point I was making to you in my previous post.

I don't feel like anyone on the global warming side of the argument is open to even hear the other side. This is constantly being reinforced by the fact that we continue saying that being better to the environment is something we also believe should be done, but the catastrophic bullshit story that these scientists are spoon feeding people just doesn't add up -- and people then keep responding with something along the lines of "Well why not be on the safe side", etc, etc. WE FUCKING AGREE, respond to the part we are not agreeing about..

[Spang]

This has got to be one of the dumbest arguments ever. It's very painful to read. One side wants to save the environment due to a crisis, while the other side wants to save the environment for some other reason; just because I guess. Save the goddamn environment and STFU!

[Xatrei]

Coleman IS a TV weather man. He is not a climatologist. He's not a scientist. Sadly his opinion rant is the sort of thing that passes for proof or evidence for you imbeciles. There's no point in arguing with people who prefer to keep their heads buried up the energy industry's asshole on this subject (or anything else for that matter). Noel is right.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Exactly Funk. We all recycle now, becase it was put forth as a way to help pollute the world less. The cities we live in encourage it, provide us with special pickups and programs are in place for all of it. It wasn't put forth like we will all die in our lifetime if we don't do it and if you don't do it you are a selfish asshole. The same long-term realistic approach would be appreciated by those of us on the more level-headed side of this argument. We all respect our planet and want all countries to continue to push forth with new ideas, programs, etc. to make for a possible better earth. The part we have a problem with is the arrogant self-importance of the people on the other side of this argument who stead-fastly believe this slight shift in the climate was caused by man and can be fixed by man and if he doesn't then we will all die. Our brief time on this planet is but a blip in the millions of years this earth has been around. Our actions are also a blip, whether they be bad or good ones. A movement to try and stop the severity of the bad ones and progress toward finding better ways of doing things is wonderful, especially when sold as such.

[Funkmasterr]

Coleman IS a TV weather man. He is not a climatologist. He's not a scientist. Sadly his opinion rant is the sort of thing that passes for proof or evidence for you imbeciles. There's no point in arguing with people who prefer to keep their heads buried up the energy industry's asshole on this subject (or anything else for that matter). Noel is right.

Wrong, moron. I did not say it was PROOF - but it is a strong opinion challenging what the majority here believe, and a little fucking variety is nice once in a while.

And spang, isn't that precisely what I said? Just curious. I'm not debating the action we need to take, I'm debating the motive, which is what this post was about.. so don't read it if it bothers you..

[Vetiria]

You guys are all asking for science that may reinforce the point of view that man made global warming isn't all its cracked up to be. I posted a link to a good source of info for these arguments earlier. You are accusing Mid of being blind to the other argument and disregarding the other side> Have you guys even looked at the information here? At all?
I'll say it again, if you want to dismiss it as propaganda, go for it. Perhaps all the scientists from the second link have been bought out by the oil companies. Dismissing it prior to reading it is the same thing you are accusing Midnyte of though. Some of them even show the data they use to derive the statistics. Its not as much as I would like, but then again the "world is ending" group doesn't provide nearly as much detail as I would like either.

http://www.theglobalwarminghoax.com/

Dismiss it all as propaganda if you will, but some of it is an interesting read.

Some of the scientists who have retracted previous global warming thoughts/statements.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? ... &Issue_id=[/quote

]

I didn't skip your post. I posted specifically to Midnyte because it's the same bs with him everytime this topic comes up. He calls everyone fanatics for having the slightest of beliefs that carbon emissions could possibly cause harm to the environment, then runs off screaming "IT'S NOT REAL, IT'S NOT REAL, NAH NAH" with his fingers in his ears. I was simply asking him to contribute even something very minor to support his beliefs, which of course he won't do.

[Spang]

And spang, isn't that precisely what I said? Just curious. I'm not debating the action we need to take, I'm debating the motive, which is what this post was about.. so don't read it if it bothers you..

Probably, two responses went thru before I hit submit. What difference does the motive make?

[Animale]

Exactly Funk. We all recycle now, becase it was put forth as a way to help pollute the world less. The cities we live in encourage it, provide us with special pickups and programs are in place for all of it. It wasn't put forth like we will all die in our lifetime if we don't do it and if you don't do it you are a selfish asshole. The same long-term realistic approach would be appreciated by those of us on the more level-headed side of this argument. We all respect our planet and want all countries to continue to push forth with new ideas, programs, etc. to make for a possible better earth. The part we have a problem with is the arrogant self-importance of the people on the other side of this argument who stead-fastly believe this slight shift in the climate was caused by man and can be fixed by man and if he doesn't then we will all die. Our brief time on this planet is but a blip in the millions of years this earth has been around. Our actions are also a blip, whether they be bad or good ones. A movement to try and stop the severity of the bad ones and progress toward finding better ways of doing things is wonderful, especially when sold as such.

This statement (our actions are but a blip) is completely untrue on OUR timescale (it is on the timescale of the earth, i.e. millions/billions of years). I personally care about reasonable timescales, and there our actions have had quite a measurable impact (species extinction, hydrothermal dams completely changing the hydrology of entire continents, emptying of aquifers, etc. etc.) Again, this is not arrogant self-importance - it is truthtelling. As others have said, the entire basis of these problems is the exponential increase in the number of people of the planet. However, population control is non-starter when talking of environmental and energy problems (and it shouldn't be, that's a can of worms I don't wish to open). Therefore, we are left with developing new ways to live how we want to live - and that requires lots of research. The only way to do that is to invest in it... we are not doing so now. Again, it is a 50-100 year fix, so it is not a crisis for those people who think in 5-10 year increments.

Somehow you are thinking both too short term and too long term. The truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Animale

edit: Somali... I did read several things on that site. Unfortunately it is largely economists pointing out that it would be expensive to change our economic basis - which is of course true. Again, they are upholding the status quo, and tend to grab onto those who have doubts as to the accuracy of climate models (there are genuine disagreements as it they are uncontrolled systems which are predicting the future of an incredibally complex system). I'm all for doubt, but not if it gets in the way of meaningful action in the face of a large consensus. I hope the naysayers are right on this, but if they are not I don't want us to be left with our pants around our ankles so to speak.

[Xatrei]

Wrong, moron. I did not say it was PROOF - but it is a strong opinion challenging what the majority here believe, and a little fucking variety is nice once in a while.

Given his lack of actual credentials, his word on the subject is about as meaningful as yours or mine. I'll take the word of the big brains that actually do the research over some washed up San Diego weatherman any day, thank you. Also, moron, note the fact that I said "proof OR evidence." The latter term certainly matches what you describe.

[Xouqoa]

The climate is changing....ok. The scam is the part where they say they know it is our fault and not a natural occurence. Mnay people are getting rich off your gullability.

This may have been said, but I didn't read the whole thread so if it has - too bad!

Fact: Global Warming may or may not be a legitimate occurrence caused by human action.

Another Fact: Even if the current warming trend is naturally cyclical for the Earth and in no way caused by human action, shouldn't we still work towards technology that is "better" for the environment such as hybrid/electric/alternative fuel vehicles and cleaner methods of creating energy that have less impact on our surroundings? Even if global warming is a myth, it is spurring people to become conscious of the need for alternative fuels and such, and I fail to see how that could possibly be a negative thing.

[Sueven]

This thread is sad. Allow me to lay it out:

START

Animale posts at 2:46, laying out what areas of global warming science are fairly settled and which are still up for debate. He seems to know what he's talking about (he is a scientist after all) and would probably provide some references if asked. What he says conflicts with what is being said by many of the anti-global warming folks.

... no one posts for one hour and twenty eight minutes...

Zaelath posts at 4:14, making some assorted insults and personal attacks

... two minutes pass...

Fash posts at 4:16, blasting Zaelath, and saying nothing whatsoever about Animale's post

... seven minutes pass...

Mid posts at 4:23, not necessarily responding directly to Zaelath, but still totally ignoring Animale's post

... two minutes pass...

Funk posts at 4:25, blasting Zaelath, and saying nothing whatsoever about Animale's post

... 19 minutes pass, which include two additional posts by Zae and one by Funk, mostly arguing about whether the founder of the weather channel has credibility in this context. both parties admit they have no idea whether or not he does...

Animale posts at 4:44, responding directly to Midnyte, admitting that packaging of global warming science can be misleading, and making valuable points about why this might be so

... 39 minutes pass. Several posts appear, including 2 by Mid, 1 by Funk, and 2 by Zae. None of the posts, by any of the authors, engages with Animale. Funk, in fact, specifically requests exactly what Animale provided in his previous post-- discussion about the "catastrophic bullshit story that these scientists are spoon feeding people."...

Animale posts at 5:23, again responding specifically to Midnyte, and making points which are valuable for the discussion as a whole (the timescale by which we measure environmental consequences, past human effects on the planet, interconnectedness of this problem with others)

... 2 hours and 20 minutes pass, encompassing two posts, none of which engage Animale (in Xou's defense, he admits not having read the thread)...

END

What a WORTHLESS FUCKING THREAD.

Thanks, Animale, for being responsible for making this thread at least mildly worth my time.

This is exhibit A for the people who claim that many posters here refuse to engage with actual arguments and are capable of participating only at the wallow-in-shit level.

Also, I'm not criticizing Zaelath here, I'm really only criticizing the anti-global warming folks. Zaelath provided personal attacks, Animale provided substance. The anti-global warming crowd chose to engage with the personal attacks, which invites speculation as to whether they're capable of engaging with the substance.

The only person to attempt to provide substance for the anti-global warming folks on this thread was Somali's links to a few websites which contain various arguments against global warming, although no real science. Animale specifically responded to these links. So thanks also goes to Somali for at least making an effort.

[Fash]

Fyi, i had constructively responded to one of animale's posts at 2:18... the others I didn't really see anything worth responding to... I don't know, maybe it's his delivery.

When someone connected with various scientists explains that a good percentage of their findings on the climate are motivated by political and personal gains, it makes me less likely to blindly accept what someone presents as scientific fact. I simply don't believe what he's saying, I don't believe he's actually qualified to say it, and I have high suspicion for the science involved in global warming. I think it's within my right to have that opinion and explain it as such. I am also highly suspicious of science involving human health as it relates to medicine and lifestyles...

Why is it so hard for you to accept that someone has a different viewpoint and just move on? Why is the thread worthless because we didn't all suck Animale's cock and laugh till the kyows came home?

Also, not one global warming 'doubter' has stated a belief that we should continue our current path... Just the reasoning for changing is different. Yes, I'm more afraid of OPEC than I am a climate catastrophe, so sue me. The end result is the same... No one has disputed this.

[Sueven]

Fyi, i had constructively responded to one of animale's posts at 2:18... the others I didn't really see anything worth responding to... I don't know, maybe it's his delivery.

Yes, I intentionally chose that point because that was the point when people started ignoring him entirely, instead of mostly. It's not that your contributions have been totally valueless-- some have been worthwhile, and you started the freaking thread, so that's worth something.

Saying that you didn't see anything worth responding to in Animale's posts is mind-boggling to me though. He was the only person arguing against you, at least from 2:46 on! And he was presenting, you know, facts, and arguments, and they didn't include (many) personal attacks. Zaelath using an analogy to Ted Turner to say that your point is 'completely fucking stupid' is worth responding to, but Animale using facts and argument to respond to your point is not?

When someone connected with various scientists explains that a good percentage of their findings on the climate are motivated by political and personal gains, it makes me less likely to blindly accept what someone presents as scientific fact.

And well it should. Interesting, then, that Animale's post, in which he provided his explanation for why public presentations of global warming science are often skewed, apparently didn't contain "anything worth responding to" from your perspective.

I simply don't believe what he's saying, I don't believe he's actually qualified to say it, and I have high suspicion for the science involved in global warming. I think it's within my right to have that opinion and explain it as such.

I'm confused about pronouns. By 'he' do you mean Animale, or do you mean the generic global warming scientist? If you mean Animale, it's pretty mind-boggling that you posted this thread in the first place, if you 'simply don't believe' those who disagree with you and 'don't believe' that they're qualified to say it, even if they, you know, happen to be one of the two freaking scientists we have on this entire forum.

I am also highly suspicious of science involving human health as it relates to medicine and lifestyles...

Only tangentially relevant. I share your suspicion and don't see how anything about global warming follows, other than a general healthy skepticism about claims cloaked in scientific rhetoric.

Why is it so hard for you to accept that someone has a different viewpoint and just move on? Why is the thread worthless because we didn't all suck Animale's cock and laugh till the kyows came home?

Dude, your opinion is fine by me. You'll notice that I haven't once engaged your opinion, nor have I stated my own. I was ignoring this thread because I don't give a shit about your opinion. You, the person who POSTED THIS THREAD, are the person who apparently cares about the opinions of others. Typically, I assume that someone soliciting opinions is interested in engaging them-- not 'sucking cock' necessarily, but, you know, engagement.

I think it's within my right to have that opinion and explain it as such... Why is it so hard for you to accept that someone has a different viewpoint and just move on?

It's my opinion that the quality of discourse in this thread is lower than shit. It's my right to have that opinion and explain it as such. Why is it so hard for you to accept that someone has a different viewpoint and just move on?

[Zaelath]

Also, not one global warming 'doubter' has stated a belief that we should continue our current path... Just the reasoning for changing is different. Yes, I'm more afraid of OPEC than I am a climate catastrophe, so sue me. The end result is the same... No one has disputed this.

Pretty sure I did:

I don't buy "the end justifies the means" and I also don't buy that we will "do enough anyway because of economic forces". It's an interesting theory, but it doesn't pass the laugh test.

Perhaps you don't think that disputes your assertion that action on global warming == well, whatever you think will drive "continuing our current path" (which BTW appears to be: Do nothing until emerging economies put themselves further behind the US by doing something first)

Sueven: Thanks for the recap, however I don't think calling my own analogy stupid is a personal attack, nor do I think it's out of line to suggest that assuming someone has scientific credentials is dumb, after being told assuming they don't is dumb (when I think it's a pretty reasonable assumption that people will be introduced with their best credentials rather than a fun fact which only an idiot would think was a relevant credential).

Yes, the entire thread is stupid, but really... what can it be when the seed is a TV weatherman has come out against global warming. It would be like starting one that Barney the Dinosaur has come out against creationism.

[Sueven]

Sueven: Thanks for the recap, however I don't think calling my own analogy stupid is a personal attack, nor do I think it's out of line to suggest that assuming someone has scientific credentials is dumb, after being told assuming they don't is dumb (when I think it's a pretty reasonable assumption that people will be introduced with their best credentials rather than a fun fact which only an idiot would think was a relevant credential).

This is probably fair. I'm just trying to give the anti-global warming folks as much of the benefit of the doubt as possible, and stay as far away from the actual substance of the arguments as I can.

[Fash]

I think it's within my right to have that opinion and explain it as such... Why is it so hard for you to accept that someone has a different viewpoint and just move on?

It's my opinion that the quality of discourse in this thread is lower than shit. It's my right to have that opinion and explain it as such. Why is it so hard for you to accept that someone has a different viewpoint and just move on?

Well put... I accept your viewpoint.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

I also respect your differing viewpoint Sueven. In fact, I respect everyone's opinion son this thread, especially those vehement global warming folks. I will treat you with the same dignity I treat religious folks. I respectfully disagree, but honor your need to believe.

[Canelek]

I can't see how you can equate theories of global warming to religion. (Unless Christian science is involved)

One of the two may have a happy outcome, eh?

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

I can't see how you can equate theories of global warming to religion. (Unless Christian science is involved)

One of the two may have a happy outcome, eh?

You really don't? I can show you literature from over 2000 years supporting christianity. Some of the worlds most intelligent people believe in it, so it must be true.

[Xyun]

I can't see how you can equate theories of global warming to religion. (Unless Christian science is involved)

One of the two may have a happy outcome, eh?

You really don't? I can show you literature from over 2000 years supporting christianity. Some of the worlds most intelligent people believe in it, so it must be true.

By contrast, one of the world's most ignorant people is an athiest, which brings shame to us all.

[Fash]

The end result is the same... No one has disputed this.

Pretty sure I did:

I don't buy "the end justifies the means" and I also don't buy that we will "do enough anyway because of economic forces". It's an interesting theory, but it doesn't pass the laugh test.

You're saying that if we don't agree to global warming, nothing will change. I'm not even debating that, though keep in mind I said at 1:39pm basically the same claim against your side of it:

The man-made crisis is corruption and greed, not global warming... and I want the blame placed squarely where it belongs... as do you, in different circumstances..

It is quite possible that kowtowing to the global warming crowd, without removing the corruption that exists in our system right now, will lead us nowhere closer to a cleaner environment or energy independence.

[Nick]

What Noel said. this thread is embarrassing.