Stupid Global Warming Tricks

[sharkman]

Well, this summer the Global Warming fear mongers seem to be gettng rather schrill, so I thought this might put things in perspective.

It's rather funny how determined young lemmings can regurgitate the Gore mantra without having the slightest idea what they are singing/shrieking/crying about.

[newbie]

I guess you missed this:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200590,00.html

[BubberMiley]

Schrill? Does that mean successful in spreading their message, which will help us all come to do what we can to save ourselves?

[sharkman]

No, we don't have to save ourselves. Mother earth will do that herself when she starts a cooling cycle in a few years. Of course the Global Warmers will try to take credit for it, I would be disappointed if they didn't.

They'll just sit around watching old dvds of The Day After Tomorrow, crying during the scary parts and comforting each other until the next naturally occuring warm cycle starts up. Oh well, everyone needs their hobbies I guess.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear sharkman,

It's rather funny how determined young lemmings can regurgitate the Gore mantra without having the slightest idea what they are singing/shrieking/crying about.

Do you include NASA as part of the 'regurgitating lemmings' crowd?

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/

[sharkman]

Dear sharkman,

It's rather funny how determined young lemmings can regurgitate the Gore mantra without having the slightest idea what they are singing/shrieking/crying about.

Do you include NASA as part of the 'regurgitating lemmings' crowd?

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/

No, I thought it was obvious that I was referrig to those in my link.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear sharkman,

No, I thought it was obvious that I was referrig to those in my link.

Not obvious at all, actually. I looked at the link, and it seemed to be filled with people who blindly deny the existence of man-made factors in the environment equation. Talk about lemmings!

[gerryhatrick]

I don't get you. Global Warming has all been a trick? Please explain.

Have we been tricked? There's no Global Warming?

[GostHacked]

I don't get you. Global Warming has all been a trick? Please explain.

Have we been tricked? There's no Global Warming?

The earth has been warming cooling for centuries. Don't forget that. During your short life on this planet, you won't really notice a damn thing overall. The planet goes through cycles and has been for ohh a couple billion years. Plus all your flailing about on Global Warming will eventually be lost be a catastropic nuclear war or a huge asteriod crashing into earth.

Some things we can stop, some we can't. We may be contributing to it, but not by having gas guzzling SUVs (ok it does not help) but tearing down important rain forest and other forests aborad that the globe's inhabitants can survive. There is more to your global warming than just vehicles and things that cause too many emmisions. If we do not have enough Nature to help us out. Then we are screwed.

[BubberMiley]

Maybe Sharkman's referring to Foxnews JunkScience lemmings.

[BHS]

Dear sharkman,

Do you include NASA as part of the 'regurgitating lemmings' crowd?

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/

I'm hoping everyone here took the time to at least read over this article, if not review it thoroughly and sit and consider all of the points made.

Toward the end of the article the author states that the most important indicator of anthropogenic global warming would be an radiation imbalance, which would ultimately show up as an increased average for the years 2001 to 2010 versus the average for the years 1991 to 2000, and that this average increase should appear regardless of any mitigating factors such as yearly fluctuation. So we should be able to put together a much better picture of the state of the environment before the Kyoto Treaty is terminated in 2012.

Of additional interest is the graph in figure 1, which was created in 1999. It's interesting to note that the actual recorded temperature averages post 1999 conform closest to Prediction C, which the author notes was created for the purposes of providing a low extreme.

[BHS]

Some things we can stop, some we can't. We may be contributing to it, but not by having gas guzzling SUVs (ok it does not help) but tearing down important rain forest and other forests aborad that the globe's inhabitants can survive. There is more to your global warming than just vehicles and things that cause too many emmisions. If we do not have enough Nature to help us out. Then we are screwed.

It's funny. I was just reading over David Suzuki's page on global "climate change" skepticism yesterday, and I was thinking to myself afterword, "I wonder how the rainforests are doing these days. We don't really hear much about that catastrophe in the offing any more."

Suzuki's page provided some interesting highlights for me:

1) His first sentence refers to the skeptics as being people who don't believe in global "climate change" which is disengenous and misleading at best a malicious fabrication intended to smear at worst. No one is arguing against climate change. To do so would be to presume that climate is static and to deny, for instance, the past occurence of ice ages. The focus of the argument has always been anthropogenic warming, as in, "Are mankind's actions causing global temperatures to increase unnaturally?"

2) For a guy who's quick to point out that he's an "award winning scientist" every chance he gets, he sure is quick to put the science stuff behind him when he's arguing about global "climate change". He's another one of these guys for whom all scientific debate is over, and anyone who disagrees is a corporate shill, and any scientific questions they pose or points they make are made invalid by the source of their funding. It's clear from reading his writing on this topic that his only true interest lies in the politcal activism aspect.

3) Using the metaphor of an ostrich hiding it's head in the sand for your opponents is a cute cliche when it comes from people who are ignorant enough about the natural world that they don't know that ostriches don't actually do that. Not so cute from a guy who's spent the better part of his adult life as a professor of zoology. Though it is itself a good metaphor for how pure rhetoric has replaced hard science in his pursuit of public policy change.

[gerryhatrick]

The earth has been warming cooling for centuries. Don't forget that.

Right. And the earth is currently experiencing global warming due to an increase in human produced C02, more than has EVER BEEN SEEN IN 650,000 YEARS.

THAT is in the movie and it's not being challanged by anyone.

It's the data from the recent science by real scientists, not "experts" paid for by Exxon.

Don't forget that.

[GostHacked]

The earth has been warming cooling for centuries. Don't forget that.

Right. And the earth is currently experiencing global warming due to an increase in human produced C02, more than has EVER BEEN SEEN IN 650,000 YEARS.

THAT is in the movie and it's not being challanged by anyone.

It's the data from the recent science by real scientists, not "experts" paid for by Exxon.

Don't forget that.

Couple the rise of the COs, or actually it relates to the deforestation of this planet. More trees can reverse this affect. Remember trees loooove the CO2. So you have MORE emissions and LESS trees to filter it, the you have a problem. Don't just focus on the emmissions.

Also in terms of this planet 650,000 years is a tick on the second hand.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear BHS,

Though it is itself a good metaphor for how pure rhetoric has replaced hard science in his pursuit of public policy change.

Sadly, it is thus. However, I am glad to see that you consider this issue seriously, and that "anthropogenic global warming" is indeed a reality, though highly politicized. I think it would be folly to say 'There is not, nor could there ever be such a thing, as a change in the environment due to mankind's activities'.

As to Suzuki, perhaps he feels that political activism is more important to making changes than to belabour the point he already believes in. 'Climatology' is, at best, an inexact science. It isn't like metallurgy, where the melting point of gold can be established in a very small period of time. However, it is possible that environmental change could be what eliminates mankind as a species on the earth, and it is also possible that it could be from our own actions.

Another metaphor I have seen is 'someone hanging from the edge of a cliff, with one hand hanging from the last branch before oblivion, and the other hand clutching a sack of gold'. It always makes me wonder why humans must wait until they are faced with immediate peril before they are willing to examine their own values.

[gc1765]

The earth has been warming cooling for centuries. Don't forget that. During your short life on this planet, you won't really notice a damn thing overall. The planet goes through cycles and has been for ohh a couple billion years. Plus all your flailing about on Global Warming will eventually be lost be a catastropic nuclear war or a huge asteriod crashing into earth.

Some things we can stop, some we can't.

I think we have a better chance of stopping global warming than we do of stopping an asteroid from crashing into the earth.

We may be contributing to it, but not by having gas guzzling SUVs (ok it does not help)...

That is exactly what is contributing to it.

...but tearing down important rain forest and other forests aborad that the globe's inhabitants can survive. There is more to your global warming than just vehicles and things that cause too many emmisions. If we do not have enough Nature to help us out. Then we are screwed.

True, we do need forests to remove the CO2, but remember that most of the CO2 is removed by algae. Even if the entire earth was forested, I doubt the trees could keep up with human CO2 production. Therefore reducing CO2 production is essential to stoping global warming.

Suzuki's page provided some interesting highlights for me:

1) His first sentence refers to the skeptics as being people who don't believe in global "climate change" which is disengenous and misleading at best a malicious fabrication intended to smear at worst. No one is arguing against climate change. To do so would be to presume that climate is static and to deny, for instance, the past occurence of ice ages. The focus of the argument has always been anthropogenic warming, as in, "Are mankind's actions causing global temperatures to increase unnaturally?"

Anyone familiar with global warming/climate change would know that it is not just warming that is occuring, that the climate is changing in other ways which are directly related to the warming of the earth. I believe that is why he uses the term global "climate change" which is much easier than saying "global warming and the increase in frequency and intensity of storms that go along with it, etc...". The changes that will occur to the climate are much more complex than 'it's gonna get hotter'.

2) For a guy who's quick to point out that he's an "award winning scientist" every chance he gets, he sure is quick to put the science stuff behind him when he's arguing about global "climate change". He's another one of these guys for whom all scientific debate is over, and anyone who disagrees is a corporate shill, and any scientific questions they pose or points they make are made invalid by the source of their funding. It's clear from reading his writing on this topic that his only true interest lies in the politcal activism aspect.

Could you please give an example where David Suzuki ignores credible scientific data? Do you really think that a non-scientist who is funded by oil companies is a credible source of "information"???

[BHS]

Sadly, it is thus. However, I am glad to see that you consider this issue seriously, and that "anthropogenic global warming" is indeed a reality, though highly politicized. I think it would be folly to say 'There is not, nor could there ever be such a thing, as a change in the environment due to mankind's activities'.

As to Suzuki, perhaps he feels that political activism is more important to making changes than to belabour the point he already believes in. 'Climatology' is, at best, an inexact science. It isn't like metallurgy, where the melting point of gold can be established in a very small period of time. However, it is possible that environmental change could be what eliminates mankind as a species on the earth, and it is also possible that it could be from our own actions.

Another metaphor I have seen is 'someone hanging from the edge of a cliff, with one hand hanging from the last branch before oblivion, and the other hand clutching a sack of gold'. It always makes me wonder why humans must wait until they are faced with immediate peril before they are willing to examine their own values.

The impact of anthropogenic warming has yet to be established.

I think your last sentence is wrong. I think we examine our own values and ways of doing this on a near daily basis. That we've examined environmentalist proposals and rejected them doesn't mean they haven't been thought through, just that they haven't been accepted as a justifiable course of action. I think it's a major conceit on the part of the pro-Kyoto crowd to think that Kyoto isn't being accepted by the general public simply because they haven't thought about it, and that if they did think about it then Kyoto would be the obvious choice. Especially when you consider that our sacrifices under Kyoto would have zero impact on the carbon dioxide load in the atmosphere.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear BHS,

I think it's a major conceit on the part of the pro-Kyoto crowd to think that Kyoto isn't being accepted by the general public simply because they haven't thought about it,

Don't get me wrong, I am not espousing the Kyoto Accord as the 'only correct answer'. In fact, I am anti-Kyoto. It is a severely flawed proposal that should be scrapped. However, I do feel that pollution, emmisions, etc should be taken much more seriously and managed better. However, Kyoto is a very bad way to do it.

[BHS]

Don't get me wrong, I am not espousing the Kyoto Accord as the 'only correct answer'. In fact, I am anti-Kyoto. It is a severely flawed proposal that should be scrapped. However, I do feel that pollution, emmisions, etc should be taken much more seriously and managed better. However, Kyoto is a very bad way to do it.

Sorry. Even as I was typing that post it occurred to me that it might look as if I were pigeonholing you into Kyoto. That wasn't really my intent. Kyoto was meant to be just an example but I was too lazy to reword my argument before I posted. My apologies.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear BHS,

My apologies

None needed, but thank you.

I think it's a major conceit on the part of the pro-Kyoto crowd

You are right, there is some conceit of those that are pro-Kyoto, likely the bulk of which is because Kyoto has been the only 'global' solution to be put forward thus far.

I am a firm believer in using tax incentives as the carrot on this one.