Global Warming is Bullsh!t!

[Dutch]

I think Al Gore thinks he can still get away with saying anything he wants, but leave it to the internets he invented to check him.

[Dutch]

7-hr delay entering Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen...
Incompatible Browser | Facebook

With U.N. security letting in only those cleared last week, hundreds of accredited delegates, journalists and NGO representatives were left to stand for hours in near-freezing temperatures before being let through. "It was crazy," AP's Seth Borenstein said. "You couldn't leave the line. You couldn't go to the bathroom, you couldn't eat. Then snowflakes started falling. One woman even said, 'if lightning strikes me, would they take me out of line?'"

People started handing out food -- one gave out tangerines, another croissants. A man screamed "I don't need food. I need socks! I'm freezing my ass off out here." At one point, a U.N. official announced the wait would be longer, prompting the crowd to boo and chant "Let Us In!"

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I was made happy by Al Gore's misstep.

Some of the models suggest there might be a 75% chance, heh. That's part of the problem here, picking and choosing the models and statistics that show what you want to show. Models that haven't done a very good job of predicting anything at all.

But yeah, remembering some stat from a few years ago and spouting it as recent fact is fun.

[CamEdwards]

I found this to be fairly compelling.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Al Gore's continued missteps show just how big of a mistake many of those who believe in climate change made by using him as a poster boy for the movement. He continues to make inaccurate statements and hold on to the 'truths' in his movie that have already been shown to be significantly flawed. 20-25 years from now, Al Gore's folly is going to be mentioned in the same breath with Al Capone's vault or the 'scientists' in the late 1970s that were sure we all would have frozen in an ice age by the year 2000.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I know I'm pissed I voted for him.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Al Gore's continued missteps show just how big of a mistake many of those who believe in climate change made by using him as a poster boy for the movement. He continues to make inaccurate statements and hold on to the 'truths' in his movie that have already been shown to be significantly flawed. 20-25 years from now, Al Gore's folly is going to be mentioned in the same breath with Al Capone's vault or the 'scientists' in the late 1970s that were sure we all would have frozen in an ice age by the year 2000.

i think that's a bit of a reach. i don't think anyone (except possibly you) will be mentioning Al Gore in 20-25 years.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

i think that's a bit of a reach. i don't think anyone (except possibly you) will be mentioning Al Gore in 20-25 years.

If no one is mentioning Al Gore in 25 years, then the Climate-gate controversy will likely be looked back on as only the tip of the iceberg.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Now John Kerry has arrived to really bring the whole thing home.

Is it too much to ask for the Republicans to be the ones believing in global warming? Something could actually get done were that the case.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Now John Kerry has arrived to really bring the whole thing home.

I'll give some credit to John Kerry. Amongst all the hypocrisy involved with energy consumption and carbon footprints, John Kerry is one of the few people that went out of their way to fly on a commercial airline to the conference. It was a small gesture and I'm sure he flies private jets just about everywhere else, but at least he bothered to back up his words with action while many others attending the conference did not. Good for him.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Seriously, who gives a flying fuck how they got there. It's just a moronic side show.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Seriously, who gives a flying fuck how they got there. It's just a moronic side show.

Yeah, but he did look less moronic than most.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Seriously, who gives a flying fuck how they got there. It's just a moronic side show.

But their moronic side show is putting TONS of carbon into the atmosphere! Don't you CARE about the Earth?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Article about a possible cooling and mini ice age over the next 20-30 years due to temperature patterns seen in the oceans. Good read.

DAVID ROSE: The mini ice age starts here | Mail Online

[RainMaker]

Why are you posting an article about a scientist who believes in global warming when you've made it clear you don't believe in it? So you think guys like him are quacks looking for money but think their stuff is "good reads". I know this is the topic du jour at the conservative sites so you have to post it, but it seems a bit funny to see people bash scientists and then want people to believe in those same scientists later on.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

That's too funny.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...ng-mojib-latif

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

That's too funny.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...ng-mojib-latif

Just as amusing is a scientist who believes his interpretation of data is the only possible assessment. I'm not saying he's wrong, but there's always multiple ways to assess the situation, especially when neither side has proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Who would you think would do a better job of interpreting this scientific data: a writer for a tabloid newspaper, or the scientist who collected, analyzed, and wrote on the data?

That's the beauty of science. Not all opinions were created equal.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Just as amusing is a scientist who believes his interpretation of data is the only possible assessment. I'm not saying he's wrong, but there's always multiple ways to assess the situation, especially when neither side has proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The entire article wasn't based on his data, it was based on his assesment of the data. His own predictions that were butchered by a tabloid newspaper. Are you saying the tabloid reporter can read the mind better than the actual person who's mind we are talking about?

[Warhammer]

I wouldn't say that any one was butchered in the Guardian article. They said he did not report it correctly. That data has been used by both sides to back their arguments.

For the record, I side with the skeptics on this. There are too many cases of "Forget what you see here, move along" by the warmers for my liking. Anytime they have anything to disprove their hypothesis, they change it to incorporate the data. While that is fine, I have a hard time taking what they say as gospel since it seems that 2-3 times a year, their models need to be refigured.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Study that showed 2 1/2 foot increase in sea levels by end of 21st century has been found to be unreliable and has been retracted by the scientists who wrote the article...........

Retraction: Constraints on future sea-level rise from past sea-level change : Article : Nature Geoscience

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Shouldn't the fact that a minor point like this was vetted, analyzed by peers, determined to be flawed, and retracted actually INCREASE the confidence people have in the 99.9999999% of research that hasn't been retracted?

[cartman]

They aren't saying the entire study was unreliable. FTFA:

Both our simulations of the last deglaciation, and the result that the equilibrium response of sea-level change to temperature is non-linear over the last deglaciation, are robust to the length of the time step used, and are still valid.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Shouldn't the fact that a minor point like this was vetted, analyzed by peers, determined to be flawed, and retracted actually INCREASE the confidence people have in the 99.9999999% of research that hasn't been retracted?

Or alternatively they always planned to release 100% guff and retract 0.0000001% just to make the other 99.999999% look more reliable...

Global warming is basically a religion: there's probably a small amount of fact that has been surrounded by exaggeration, assumption and lies; some people are convinced it is completely true based on pure faith; and the only way it will be proven right is in the event of an apocalypse when we all wish we had believed all along.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Perfectly well reasoned.

[molson]

It's kind of nice symmetry that both the global warming believers and deniers will have equal roles in the ultimate destuction of earth as a habitable planet. The exagerators and fabricators among the believers cause as much damage as the doubters.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by molson

It's kind of nice symmetry that both the global warming believers and deniers will have equal roles in the ultimate destuction of earth as a habitable planet. The exagerators and fabricators among the believers cause as much damage as the doubters.

Do they each have roles? Yes. Do they have equal roles? I don't think that's really fair.

It sounds like all the "frivolous lawsuits" of the 90s. The robber who sues because someone left a knife out on their counter and was injured while robbing a house, the McDonalds is culpable for a decent chunk of responsibility because their coffee was too hot, etc. When, really, if you hadn't been robbing the house or driving with coffee, you wouldn't even be in this situation in the first place.

Shouldn't we know better than to put crap into the atmosphere that we can't control?

SI

[molson]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Shouldn't we know better than to put crap into the atmosphere that we can't control?

Sure, but the damage can only really be stopped/reversed if everyone makes serious economic and lifestyle sacrifices. That ain't happening as long as everyone is exagerating or dismissing the evidence, and being called on it. Everyone's motives are political, at the moment, one way or other.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Do they each have roles? Yes. Do they have equal roles? I don't think that's really fair.

Shouldn't we know better than to put crap into the atmosphere that we can't control?

SI

I don't believe the two to be mutually exclusive. I'm a guy who recycles all the time and drives a fuel efficient vehicle just because I think it's a good idea to minimize my impact on my surroundings (trash, fuel reserves, smog, etc.).

With that said, I find the global warming argument and the attempt to somehow legislate a "solution" to be intolerable at best.

[molson]

I wish I had some giant, magical computer that listed how much everyone recycles/takes available public transportation/etc in relation to their posture on global warming.

I mean, I see a lot of discarded soda cans and bottles, even in "liberal" cities and "liberal" college campuses.

[sterlingice]

And I'm the damn fool who everyone notes as the "trash collector" because I have a pair of boxes behind my desk (one for paper, one for containers). But I'm not sure what that has to do with what we're talking about.

EDIT: This goes back to message vs messenger. Just because you can slime a messenger doesn't mean the message isn't a good message, even if it has the wrong messenger. Just because the GOP gets caught with their hand in the proverbial cookie jar either in Minnesota airport bathrooms, hiking the Appalachian trail, or sexing up the Congressional pages doesn't mean that it's bad to have good family values (pick your nebulous definition that doesn't just consist of "hating the gay and being pro-life").

Now it does eat away at the credibility of the messenger which can indirectly affect the message but just going off and looking for something to crush a messenger just because you don't like their message, well that's just intellectually lazy.

SI

[molson]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

And I'm the damn fool who everyone notes as the "trash collector" because I have a pair of boxes behind my desk (one for paper, one for containers). But I'm not sure what that has to do with what we're talking about.

Just that there's caring about the environment, and caring about the debate about the environment. When people on both sides get into the lying and one-upping, that distinction is blurred. (As the "trash collector" this certainly does not apply to you)

[Arles]

I think human activity certainly impact the climate to a point - much like dumping a cup of sand on a beach impacts the amount of sand of the beach.

The problem is that so many non-man caused activities do significantly more damage than we could ever dream of doing. We could all run around on Fred Flintstone cars, recycle every piece of trash created and use solar/wind power to heat our homes. But, one volcanic eruption and all the good we'd tried is completely undone on our atmosphere by nature.

At the end, we should try to be good, practical stewards of the environment and leave it at that. If most people are reasonable with their recycling/conservation/power/water useage, we will end up being just fine. But the ideas that we will be "saving the planet" if cars go from 20 MPG to 25 MPG and we charge corporations a fee if they go slight over the amount of power we feel that should need are pretty silly.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Arles

At the end, we should try to be good, practical stewards of the environment and leave it at that. If most people are reasonable with their recycling/conservation/power/water useage, we will end up being just fine. But the ideas that we will be "saving the planet" if cars go from 20 MPG to 25 MPG and we charge corporations a fee if they go slight over the amount of power we feel that should need are pretty silly.

But that is a question that demands specificity: What does being "practical stewards of the environment" mean?

You know that if it's profitable, every corporation out there will dump everything they can into water, waste any ounce of electricity, and endanger public safety, again, *if it's more profitable to do that than incur risk*. They have no interest in being practical stewards to the environment- there is no incentive to do that inherent in the structure and in their ideal.
(and we aren't even going down the line that a corporation is not a thinking, breathing entity but an organization made up of individuals but ruled by people who most desire power and money as that is how they got ahead of those who less desire power and money- again, inherent in the definition of the structure)

When you can spend $75M on a PR campaign to pretend you're good for the environment and it offsets damage that would cost $100M to clean up, it will be done 99 or 100 times out of 100. And we're not even talking about something where you can spend $3M to offset $1B.

So, again- what does "practical stewards of the environment" mean at a corporate level? It sounds more like "lets not regulate anything and assume it will all turn out ok because people will stop buying our product when it turns out we dump lead into the water". Only it doesn't happen that way because you saved $25M using PR vs cleanup above and every other competitor is gone for doing the right thing or is doing the same thing you are to stay competitive.

SI

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Do they each have roles? Yes. Do they have equal roles? I don't think that's really fair.

It sounds like all the "frivolous lawsuits" of the 90s. The robber who sues because someone left a knife out on their counter and was injured while robbing a house, the McDonalds is culpable for a decent chunk of responsibility because their coffee was too hot, etc. When, really, if you hadn't been robbing the house or driving with coffee, you wouldn't even be in this situation in the first place.

Shouldn't we know better than to put crap into the atmosphere that we can't control?

SI

This isn't the right thread, but the McDonalds' coffee thing is a terrible example of a frivolous lawsuit.

[ISiddiqui]

+1

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

This isn't the right thread, but the McDonalds' coffee thing is a terrible example of a frivolous lawsuit.

Agreed. errr +1

Oh and to be on topic. Does the news about the sea level rise study mean that Al Gore will need to recall his movie?

[gstelmack]

I'd much rather see all these efforts focused on the fact that we are poisoning our seafood supply with mercury than on a naturally occurring cycle of nature. There are for more dangerous pollution results out there than alleged "global warming" that even if it is occurring can't be pinned reliably on man, yet it's caught all the attention.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Al Gore is here to straighten us all out............

Op-Ed Contributor - We Can’t Wish Away Climate Change - NYTimes.com

[gstelmack]

I love how it's now called "Climate Change". Is this an attempt to avoid the staistical problems that the name "Warming" is bringing to them?

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I love how it's now called "Climate Change". Is this an attempt to avoid the staistical problems that the name "Warming" is bringing to them?

He used "global warming" in the first sentence of his op-ed.

[cartman]

I remember it being called "climate change" long before "global warming" became popular.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by cartman

I remember it being called "climate change" long before "global warming" became popular.

Climate Change is the natural occurring warming and cooling cycles while Global Warming is a name attributed to man-made warming. They are not the same thing.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I love how it's now called "Climate Change". Is this an attempt to avoid the staistical problems that the name "Warming" is bringing to them?

Could you imagine all of the things Al Gore could implement if he were ever President or vice-President? Oh wait...he had his chance.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Climate Change is the natural occurring warming and cooling cycles while Global Warming is a name attributed to man-made warming. They are not the same thing.

You are mistaken in that assumption. It is the addition of "anthropomorphic" or "anthropogenic" that indicates a man-made component.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Could you imagine all of the things Al Gore could implement if he were ever President or vice-President? Oh wait...he had his chance.

You seem to forget a little something called the Kyoto Protocol, which he had a big input in drafting. It was ratified by all but 9 members of the UN. So I'd say that was a pretty impressive world-wide accomplishment.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by cartman

You seem to forget a little something called the Kyoto Protocol, which he had a big input in drafting. It was ratified by all but 9 members of the UN. So I'd say that was a pretty impressive world-wide accomplishment.

You know, I've never heard that Al Gore drafted the Kyoto Protocol. Only that he symbolically signed it and then refused to submit it to the Senate for ratification because it was bad for America.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Dutch

You know, I've never heard that Al Gore drafted the Kyoto Protocol. Only that he symbolically signed it and then refused to submit it to the Senate for ratification because it was bad for America.

Sadly, it really isn't surprising this is your understanding of the situation. He didn't want to submit it to the Senate for a vote until key developing countries had ratified the agreement. The part about it being bad for America was because it would have been if the US was held to the terms of the treaty without the certain developing countries (namely India and China) also being held to the terms.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by cartman

Sadly, it really isn't surprising this is your understanding of the situation. He didn't want to submit it to the Senate for a vote until key developing countries had ratified the agreement. The part about it being bad for America was because it would have been if the US was held to the terms of the treaty without the certain developing countries (namely India and China) also being held to the terms.

Right, bad for America. Obviously, I'm glad he was logical about this when he was in a position of power. I'm not thrilled with his attacks afterward against America when the following leadership has maintained the same responsiblities.

[cartman]

Yay! The US is keeping it real like the other non-ratifiers:

Afghanistan
Andorra
Palestinian Authority
Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic
San Marino
Somalia
Taiwan
Vatican City

"attacks against America"? Seriously? A strong disagreement with policy is not an "attack against America".