Uh Oh Al, scientist on Al's film

[Stephanie]

"The national science academies of the G8 nations and Brazil, China and India, three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world, have signed a statement on the global response to climate change.

"(Well, that's real nice of China,Brazil and India, since their some of the worst polluters in the world)

URL="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=aiUC2JB2UcGA"]The GOP is facing increasing dissent over Bush's climate change policies, with their 2008 candidate expected to support Kyoto.[/URL]

Damn............ the libs, Dems had eight whole yrs to change things on global warming...

How they do??

Now because the Republicans control things, the gosh darn sky is falling and is going to crush us all to friggin death..................................:rotflmao:

 

[MtnBiker]

The best data to use is simply to ask average people who have been alive. The longer Americans have been alive, the more likely they recognize that the temperature has increased.

You have yet to clearify this statement.

Do you mean to say that the longer a person lives the more likely they are to recognize statistical data?

I haven't disputed an increase in the earth's temperature.

 

[theHawk]

Psst, you know a good reason some cities are getting 'warmer' temps is because of increased urbanization. The more concrete is around the warmer its going to get. Spend some summers in Phoenix and you'll learn this fast.

 

[5stringJeff]

5stringjeff and the rest of you, your responses are simply irrelevant. I may answer you MtnBiker as soon as you acknowledge what I have posted here.

So where you come from, fact-based critiques of your positions are irrelevant? Thanks for the heads up. I'll not be discussing anything else with you.

 

[Mr.Conley]

5stringJeff: What is your biggest criticism of global warming?

MtnBiker: What is you biggest criticism of global warming?

Stephanie: What is you biggest criticism of global warming?

theHawk: What is your biggest criticism of global warming?

 

[MtnBiker]

MtnBiker: What is you biggest criticism of global warming?

Here is a previous answer I gave on the issue.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=437296&postcount=69

 

[dilloduck]

5stringJeff: What is your biggest criticism of global warming?

MtnBiker: What is you biggest criticism of global warming?

Stephanie: What is you biggest criticism of global warming?

theHawk: What is your biggest criticism of global warming?

I know I wasn't asked but my biggest criticism about global warming is the illusion that people can do much to change it. That being said, using it in the political arena is a bit silly. But hey, I guess all politics are.

 

[Hobbit]

The best data to use is simply to ask average people who have been alive. The longer Americans have been alive, the more likely they recognize that the temperature has increased. See also the references above. Also check the mean temperatures yourself.

Bullcrap. My grandma swears up and down that global warming is very much real because it snows less in NW Arkansas than it used to. That part is true, but it's because of the 5 artificial lakes that have been built since she's been alive. As a result, the summers are also cooler than they were. The average temperature, according to scientific records, has remained the same.

You see, she loves Al Gore and wants him to be right, so she only sees the evidence that he is right and fails to notice the evidence that he is wrong. Placing personal testimony above hard evidence is stupid. It's like saying "Well, I don't care if the suspect's fingerprints and DNA are all over the place or that he was caught on camera, most of the eyewitnesses never said they saw him, and personal accounts are so much more reliable than that iffy physical evidence."

 

[theHawk]

theHawk: What is your biggest criticism of global warming?

My biggest criticism might be that those on the left, try to use global warming to their political advantage. They act like we can change things overnight if we elect Libs in office. They also don't propose any solution to the problem either, except of course blabbing out generic feel-good statements like "lets work towards alternative forms of fuel". If libs would had spent all their money on funding such projects instead of funding anti-bush campaigns, I might have more respect for them and believe their interests are actually in the environment and not acquiring political power.

What really pisses me off about the left is they bitch about us being dependant on oil and "funding the enemy" yet they turn around and prevent us from drilling more oil for ourselves in our own lands, not realizing of course if we did open up new oil refineries and drilling sites they would held to a much more strict envornmentaly friendly regulations than those applied to the countries we buy oil from. But this seems to be oblivious to libs, who cry at the thought of a 'Big Oil Company' opening up new drilling sites, or opening up new nuclear power plants.

I think the push for Americans to run out and buy hybrid cars is a fucking farce. The last thing we should worry about is the private vehicles americans like to drive. What we should be focusing on is closing down the coal burning power plants and replace them with nuclear, and work on alternative power/hybrid vehicles for mass transit, government, corporate vehicles and the 18 wheelers that have become the backbone of our economy. Fix those problems first, then bitch to me about driving my sports car or to the soccer mom driving a SUV.

That is my main gripe with the "global warming" movement. The debate about whether or not mankind has caused temperatures to rise is a moot point, it doesn't matter- the Earth has been warming for the last 10,000 years and there is nothing we can do to stop it. The question is what are we going to do about our fuel needs and how can we best reduce causing the environment more problems? In the end, liberals don't seem to have any real answers to either question, all they do is scream about how Bush lied and conservatives like me are causing a global meltdown....when its clear the only meltdown is in their heads.

 

[Stephanie]

My biggest criticism about global warming. hummmmm?

That would be having some elitist, scare mongering jerk who leaves one of his many homes, then flies around the world in his private jet, blaming the United States and the people who live here, as being the cause of it..

You have to wonder why Bore didn't make this movie back when he was Vice President??? I'ts not like he was too busy saving the world from us evil United States then.

Pure extortion attempt...
And pure Democrat scare tactic to say, hey lookie those evil conservatives don't care about our earth, SO YOU BETTER VOTE DEMOCRAT...

Is global warming happening, yes (naturally).
Do humans have all the blame for it, No.
Have humans added to the problem, Maybe.
To what extent, we DONT KNOW.

 

[5stringJeff]

5stringJeff: What is your biggest criticism of global warming?

I have to agree with MtnBiker. I'm not knocking the scientific data; I'm knocking the idea that mankind, and specifically industrial activity, is the primary reason that global warming is occurring. Evidence of temperature variations over the past millenia, which were not the result of man's industrial activity, have been well documented; we have no reason to believe that current temperature variations are not also due to natural reasons.

 

[Mr.Conley]

Okay, here is the overall consensus I'm seeing from you guys:
1. You do not believe that humans impact global warming or you do not believe there is enough evidence supporting this claim.
2. You believe the Democrats using the issue to advance the party
3. You think that the climate has changed before and will change again, and that there is nothing we can do about it.
4. You don't think the Democrats are really serious about facing the issue.
5. You believe that other countries will not reduce their environmental impact
6. You really hate Al Gore.
7. You don't think the Democrats can offer solutions to the problem.

Is this a correct list? Do you have anything to add? Anything to refute and why? Any additional statements? Why do you believe what you do?

 

[5stringJeff]

Okay, here is the overall consensus I'm seeing from you guys:
1. You do not believe that humans impact global warming or you do not believe there is enough evidence supporting this claim.
2. You believe the Democrats using the issue to advance the party
3. You think that the climate has changed before and will change again, and that there is nothing we can do about it.
4. You don't think the Democrats are really serious about facing the issue.
5. You believe that other countries will not reduce their environmental impact
6. You really hate Al Gore.
7. You don't think the Democrats can offer solutions to the problem.

Is this a correct list? Do you have anything to add? Anything to refute and why? Any additional statements? Why do you believe what you do?

I personally agree with 1, 3, 5, and 7, and 2 to a lesser extent.

 

[MtnBiker]

Honestly I really do not see it as a Democrat and Republican issue. Few politicians will sucessfully campaign on a global warming platform one way or another. I would agree that more democrats are likely to vote for legislation concerning global warming.

I don't hate Al Gore. I do believe his message on global warming is based on fear and some of the statements he makes are extreme. You (Mr. Conley) have said yourself that the computer models are not reliable enough to accurately predict the climate in the future.

Of course the climate has changed before and regardless of anything we do it will change again.

 

[catatonic]

What would you do if you were me, and you knew you were right, but every single post ignored you or distorted you or said something totally irrelevant with other posters calling this irrelevant stuff important or changed the subject, all while every poster pretended they had an aura of righteous behavior?! You also knew full well that it was impossible to tell the serious people from the elite who were lying.

I'll pick two posts at random and respond to them, showing by my response to two random posts how I can respond to all of you. Perhaps I'll start using this tactic a lot. I select them randomly with Microsoft Excel.

 

[catatonic]

Quote:
Originally Posted by catatonic
It's safe to guess, using what I can see over the time of this thread, despite using very infant arguments from what I'm capable of, using the chances that I will actually be challenged on an intellectual ground, that I have no real challenge. I am justified in putting this thread on ignore.

Quite a verbose way of saying you cannot answer a question posed to you.

Actually it's saying, I can do way better, but you don't respond rationally to what I've already posted, and so it is unwise to try to respond. I can answer any question on this thread and any challenge quite well.

 

[5stringJeff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by catatonic
It's safe to guess, using what I can see over the time of this thread, despite using very infant arguments from what I'm capable of, using the chances that I will actually be challenged on an intellectual ground, that I have no real challenge. I am justified in putting this thread on ignore.

Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back, Mr. Arrogant.

 

[catatonic]

Okay, here is the overall consensus I'm seeing from you guys:
1. You do not believe that humans impact global warming or you do not believe there is enough evidence supporting this claim.
2. You believe the Democrats using the issue to advance the party
3. You think that the climate has changed before and will change again, and that there is nothing we can do about it.
4. You don't think the Democrats are really serious about facing the issue.
5. You believe that other countries will not reduce their environmental impact
6. You really hate Al Gore.
7. You don't think the Democrats can offer solutions to the problem.

Is this a correct list? Do you have anything to add? Anything to refute and why? Any additional statements? Why do you believe what you do?

Lucky me I actually got this one to respond to.

1. Global climate change modelling is not in its infancy. Many models are not accurate, but they never claim they are. It's just rigorous to include all factors. However the IPCC commissioned 300 independent experts to come together, analyze each other fully, spent a very long time checking over everything, it was the biggest scientific study of this until the G8 thing I posted, and they all agreed unanimously that human involvement in global warming was undeniable. Not only that, but they built the first model to include every known factor, and it worked perfectly.

(figure c)

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/450.htm#fig127

This model shows that indeed it is scientific, as they didn't manipulate the data to make a perfect fit with reality. It suggests that if this is one massive coincidence or statistical lie, scientific formulas for what everything we know about actually predict what is happening!. Denying this is just like denying the predictability of radioactive isotopes for dating objects older than 100,000 years. If all the isotopes are wrong, they must all be wrong together and by the same amount. In order for this to happen with global warming, every factor to global warming must have a faulty scientific basis for predicting temperature change, and all of those errors miraculously cancel each other out in the whole formula. No scientist has presented any credible evidence to date that anything was in error or was distorted, and why should they since the model got it right. Lindzen's argument works more on the scientists against global warming than those for it.

Plus there is all this which was never even responded to in a logical fashion:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The national science academies of the G8 nations and Brazil, China and India, three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world, have signed a statement on the global response to climate change. "
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/document.asp?id=3222

Much more evidence, and the complaint that China, India, and Brazil are the worst polluters supports the validity of this, not diminishes it.

CFCs have massively damaged the ozone layer, despite skeptics and their tactics.
http://www.wunderground.com/education/ozone_skeptics.asp

Much more evidence, and never responded to.

The GOP is facing increasing dissent over Bush's climate change policies, with their 2008 candidate expected to support Kyoto.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=aiUC2JB2UcGA

The GOP itself is buying it now. Strong evidence.

Let's go to point 2.

2. Are the Democrats using this to advance their party? Yes, and that's politics. First of all, it's a moral issue. Second of all, Republicans could use this to advance their party too, and the backlash for not doing it in the past would be extremely tiny compared to the happiness of voters who would jump to support the Republicans. Third of all, the Republicans are getting ready to use this to advance their party, in my link just above.

3. The fact that climate change has changed before is irrelevant, as scientists understand this fact and it is not what they base their conclusions on, as I've already demonstrated. no1tovote4's claim has never had a valid scientific criticism made using it, and can be said about any aspect of life since learning itself is based on statistical mechanisms in the brain, making it more irrelevant since we are forced to use our brain to do anything. The argument that there's nothing we can do about it is fallicious. In fact, it's economical to do something about it. On the News Hour with Jim Lehrer, a scientist came up with a machine that costs a few billion dollars to massproduce millions of which would stop all warming and could cool the earth too and is economically profitable. See the day they announced Zarqawi's capture.

4. This is more about politics than anything else, and could be said more about the Republicans. Countries will play hardball with how little how late to try to make a few bucks, but that's a very dangerous game. Any unforeseen event could enhance the problem (although we know all factors by now to completely predict it) and then it would be too late.

5. This is not the people's fault when countries break their own laws of representation. California set a trend to curtail emissions under GOPer Arnold Schwarzenegger. It would do absolutely nothing to help California financially and the results on California itself would be insignificant. Yet they did it any way. Then Congress passed an unconstitutional law that no other state could do this, even though many states wanted to follow the trend. However, if the people can register the problem in their heads, there is recourse. The sad fact is people with IQs that are not 10% above average, who don't comprehend the word correlation, cannot understand the reason why this is absolutely proven. It's also taboo to say "correlation" in polite conversation. Another mess to deal with. Another thing is the forces against solving it now want an economic solution so they can praise capitalism while deriding government. I agree on #5 here, but we still have the freedom to work towards addressing the problem every day and it can be solved in time.

6. Whether you hate Al Gore ought to be irrelevant. As I've pointed out, the largest gathering of scientists up until that time unanimously proved it and supported action, and then an even larger gathering of 11 independent scientific bodies who represent their government said the same thing even more strongly. Also, the GOP wants to do something about it, at least in stating support.

7. Sigh. However there are plenty of workable solutions. The Book Natural Capitalism, for instance, explains that without a single corporation changing their bottom line of profits or a bottom line of employment, there can be an added bottom line on using natural resources, and not only that but it would make the whole USA extremely wealthy and would be biggest revolution since the industrial revolution. Inventions have already been made to solve it that are economical regardless of this. Regardless of this, a reform could be made that only those with 10% above average intelligence can vote and 50% above average intelligence can run. This wouldn't sway politics to the left or right or away or towards libertarianism, but up in the direction of all these systems making sense, and it would solve the problem. This reform, stated in one sentence, is really my entire platform on anything.

Any further comments. I answered two random posts and feel it would be wise to use this tactic on this board in the future.

 

[catatonic]

Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back, Mr. Arrogant.

I'm sorry. Let me respond to all your posts.
You said the graph I posted is a one month trend and shows half the US getting colder. This shows that you are not reading my posts critically, as none of you are except maybe MtnBiker, but he doesn't want to acknowledge anything except the sight thing so I really don't feel I should care about his own problems or answer his questions. If he acknowledges this:
"The national science academies of the G8 nations and Brazil, China and India, three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world, have signed a statement on the global response to climate change. "
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/document.asp?id=3222

Much more evidence, and the complaint that China, India, and Brazil are the worst polluters supports the validity of this, not diminishes it.

CFCs have massively damaged the ozone layer, despite skeptics and their tactics.
http://www.wunderground.com/educatio...e_skeptics.asp

Much more evidence, and never responded to.

The GOP is facing increasing dissent over Bush's climate change policies, with their 2008 candidate expected to support Kyoto.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aiUC2JB2UcGA

The GOP itself is buying it now. Strong evidence.

then I can acknowledge the legitimacy of his question and respond to it.

I said it responds to 4 things posted. First of all, it responds to two posts of manu1959. He stated that my post was bullshit because he lives in a rural area of California that was getting colder in every season. Then he sort of implied California was getting colder. I answered these two posts by showing that California was clearly getting warmer since the 1979-2000 mean, and that it was in fact a hot May for manu1959 unless he lived in a very small range. I was also answering two posts questioning the legitimacy of the overwhelming scientistific concensus on climate change. One was that temperature was not measured everywhere, while this graph shows that, at least in the US, it is, and one was suggesting that if it was measured everywhere the results would differ, while this graph shows again it already is and has been.

An attempt to decide where the grid was placed to include more cities is ridiculous because they are not built around being on any grid points. This is the most possible way statistics could deceptively be used to manipulate the data. In fact, no credible hypothesis for how the statistics might have manipulated the data has been raised. You'd think with temperature being measured everywhere, this would be relatively easy with the billions of dolalrs being thrown at this cause to do too.

So I can understand you might have started to think I was arrogant by not seeing I was responding to those 4 points and those 4 points alone. I'm sorry for the miscommunication.

Then you said that where I came from, fact-based critiques of responses are irrelevant. Yes your critique was fact-based, but not relevant to what I was actually responding to, as I was only using that chart to respond to those 4 posts and those 4 posts alone. But many, OK all, of these fact-based critiques, although they may have facts, are not facts that are relevant or rational points in the arguments. In fact, fact-based critiques of responses are relevant in every other message board I've been to, and they are accompanied with people changing their opinions because they make sense.

Then you said you wouldn't be discussing anything else with me, which is the exact same tactic you now say I'm arrogant for.

Your next post is all based on facts, as are all your posts so far, but not an argument for doing nothing. A significant amount of scientists do believe mankind is not the most contributing factor. That's true. The amount leaving this viewpoint is going up in meta-studies, but anyway all the science I've presented never said that it was the most-contributing factor. That doesn't mean that temperature increase can't be stopped.

Then you cited that temperature change over the past millenia was not manmade. True but the problem is the temperature change we really are causing that is proved beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Then you say, "we have no reason to believe that current temperature variations are not also due to natural reasons." True if you ignore my posts and call me arrogant.

Then in your last post, you call me arrogant, when I never will call you arrogant. And I give a fuck. I clearly give a fuck and I take a long time to make some of my posts.

Also, I'm sorry I edit my posts afterwards and have bad form. I always try to do it in a short time frame and never after they've been responded to. It is hard to form the habit when I know full well a smear could erupt before I get to respond, which would stop people from reading my response.

 

[Stephanie]

Then in your last post, you call me arrogant, when I never will call you arrogant. And I give a fuck. I clearly give a fuck and I take a long time to make some of my posts.

[/QUOTE]


For sure you take a long time making some of your post...
I actually think I dose off while reading them.::teeth: