Global Warming is a SCAM
category: general [glöplog]
grrrr!!
gasman: but of course, there's no financial incentive for the bigboys pushing this scam from the top. oh no sir, that's more tin-foil hat conspiratorialism.
http://rwer.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/carbon-credits-britain%E2%80%99s-richest-man-cleans-up/
1 billion to begin with, that's not a bad start.
http://rwer.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/carbon-credits-britain%E2%80%99s-richest-man-cleans-up/
1 billion to begin with, that's not a bad start.
rtype: I'm sorry, but when you're trying to create the image that global warming (or to use a better term - "climate change") is a scam fueled by people who want to make money, you're making an ass of yourself. Take a look at who stands to gain from the oposite angle - I think you'll find they far outweigh the scientists who now make up a 90-95% consensus in the scientific community on man-made climate change being real and indeed a crisis for the planet.
Also, I wish that for once, climate change deniers would cite something different than one-theme blogs. Here - allow me to start the credible sources exchange with this nugget of gold from New Scientist: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18238-why-theres-no-sign-of-a-climate-conspiracy-in-hacked-emails.html
Bah, I have no time for this any longer - just go watch the latest The Daily Show episode and have Jon Stewart spit in your face. He's much better at it than me.
Also, I wish that for once, climate change deniers would cite something different than one-theme blogs. Here - allow me to start the credible sources exchange with this nugget of gold from New Scientist: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18238-why-theres-no-sign-of-a-climate-conspiracy-in-hacked-emails.html
Quote:
The leaking of emails and other documents from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, UK, has led to a media and political storm. The affair is being portrayed as a scandal that undermines the science behind climate change. It is no such thing, and here's why.
Bah, I have no time for this any longer - just go watch the latest The Daily Show episode and have Jon Stewart spit in your face. He's much better at it than me.
Never the less, Newsweek was happy to print that it was a consensus:
And despite the limited scientific data, there was actual concern among the public. Just as today, a LOT of people consider climate change to be the number one most important of all challenges facing the human race today, because they've been told (or at least been thoroughly given the impression) of a "scientific consensus" that global warming means the end of life as we know it.
The point is not to trust what is reported as the "scientific consensus", and never to just assume politics is somehow grounded in reality. I'm personally happy to accept that there is consensus on a man-made heating trend (as I don't care to believe in these global conspiracy theories), but so far I'm not really seeing any meaningful discussion of how much of a priority we should make it. The only cost-benefit analyses I've been able to find are from the Copenhagen Consensus, which ranks global warming dead last on our ideal list of priorities, because it just isn't such a big deal compared to all the other problems we've got, and there really isn't a lot we can do about it anyway.
Quote:
Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.
And despite the limited scientific data, there was actual concern among the public. Just as today, a LOT of people consider climate change to be the number one most important of all challenges facing the human race today, because they've been told (or at least been thoroughly given the impression) of a "scientific consensus" that global warming means the end of life as we know it.
The point is not to trust what is reported as the "scientific consensus", and never to just assume politics is somehow grounded in reality. I'm personally happy to accept that there is consensus on a man-made heating trend (as I don't care to believe in these global conspiracy theories), but so far I'm not really seeing any meaningful discussion of how much of a priority we should make it. The only cost-benefit analyses I've been able to find are from the Copenhagen Consensus, which ranks global warming dead last on our ideal list of priorities, because it just isn't such a big deal compared to all the other problems we've got, and there really isn't a lot we can do about it anyway.
@gasman, that was.
Quote:
Bah, I have no time for this any longer
in that case i wont waste my time correcting your naivety. thanks for the input.
wordappendgate scoring sheet:
* does it refer to a scandal of some sort? -1p
* is it related to US politics? -1p
* does it have anything else in common with watergate? -2p
* does it have anything to do with gates for that matter? +-0p
* does it rhyme? -1p
* is it grammatically even (semi-)meaningful? -1p
* are the parts of roughly the same length? -1p (2x is close enough)
* are they even in the same language? -1p
* heck, does it make any sense at all or are you just appending "gate" to random words? (tautology)
* add random points if whatever you came up with is actually the total antithesis of one or more of the above 'rules'
* does it refer to a scandal of some sort? -1p
* is it related to US politics? -1p
* does it have anything else in common with watergate? -2p
* does it have anything to do with gates for that matter? +-0p
* does it rhyme? -1p
* is it grammatically even (semi-)meaningful? -1p
* are the parts of roughly the same length? -1p (2x is close enough)
* are they even in the same language? -1p
* heck, does it make any sense at all or are you just appending "gate" to random words? (tautology)
* add random points if whatever you came up with is actually the total antithesis of one or more of the above 'rules'
Scientists "claim" that human-caused emissions cause the planet to get warmer. But what happens when we zoom out on the graph?? Ah-ha, we see that the Earth just a few billion years ago used to be completely covered in molten lava! See, it's completely natural for the surface of the earth to get extremely hot. Obviously there were no factories back then, DUH. I can't believe you climate change proponents really think that factories existed more than 1 billion years ago. You need to get your facts straight, this isn't religion, this is facts (ie. a graph I found). It's pure numerology—you can't argue with numbers.
doom:
Newsweek and time is at the end of the day, tabloids.
Everytime there is an intriguing hypothesis from someone they dont manage to relay the nuances.
In fact, the paper that times and newsweek cited kinda missrepresented it also.
If you want to find the consensus on the issue you get a much better view on checking the amount of scientific papers.
just saying....
Newsweek and time is at the end of the day, tabloids.
Everytime there is an intriguing hypothesis from someone they dont manage to relay the nuances.
In fact, the paper that times and newsweek cited kinda missrepresented it also.
If you want to find the consensus on the issue you get a much better view on checking the amount of scientific papers.
just saying....
yesso humans also did not exist during that time. the environment has to be able to support us. we can't live through everything. (even though our dumbass' think we can.)
well, trees can (unless we cut'em down)
<3
<3
Quote:
you do like to look at graphs which you can't comprehend and scary dramatic satellite images with bold red splattered everywhere, dont you. does it makes you feel like an informed citizens?
@rtype: you don't need to have a PhD to understand that graph...
ps: and, in this case red is good ;)
yesso :) 
Wo bin ich denn hier gelandet!? Ihr Säcke! Drogen! Glatzen! Hab ich ja noch nie gehört! ...Labert ihr wieder fürn Scheiss hier...
Climate Change Denial Crock of the Week - CRU emails.
You may also want to check out the one on Anthony Watts (many of eeblis' links point to his site), and this list of denial myths and videos.
Of course, one source is not going to compel climate change deniers to change their views. Here's what New Scientist has to say.
I hate this thread.
You may also want to check out the one on Anthony Watts (many of eeblis' links point to his site), and this list of denial myths and videos.
Of course, one source is not going to compel climate change deniers to change their views. Here's what New Scientist has to say.
I hate this thread.
PS Watts is on pro-republican network Fox's payroll. I have watched Fox "News." It can fuck off.
I support the point of yesso. It doesn't fucking matter what natural causes global warming/heating or boiling had some thousands or million years ago. What matters is what causes it now and how can we stop it or slow it down. And since the data points to a big human influence it is our fucking responsebility to ourselfs and the coming generations to try to undone some of the harm we did to a climate that the human species needs to exist. The planet doesn't care what climate it has, it only matters to the human species.
Crossing the arms and saying "I don't do anything and don't support anything until I have enough evidence (that I accept as such" is plain a simple asocial. When it's too late and you say: "Well, shit happens" you're the one to blame.
BTW when does any human anything after he waited for the full evidence for something? I don't recall a single decision I made in my life that was fully backed up by thousands of scientists. In the end there is always the risk a decision was made based on false or not completly correct evidence.
The question is never if you can be 100% shure, it's always the question: can you be shure enough.
And science is never by 100% shure; one core rule of a scientific finding: It is considered true until proven otherwise. At least science acknowledges this ever existing flaw in itself, while religion doesn't and claims to be always the truth, no matter what.
In this case we can be shure enough to decide: Fight fucking global warming until it's too late. If it's too late: At least we tried and then face the consequences. If it's not: There you have something mankind can be proud of and globalisation at least brought something good by combining global forces to prevent something to happen.
Which I am not very optimistic about BTW. And this thread shows why.
Crossing the arms and saying "I don't do anything and don't support anything until I have enough evidence (that I accept as such" is plain a simple asocial. When it's too late and you say: "Well, shit happens" you're the one to blame.
BTW when does any human anything after he waited for the full evidence for something? I don't recall a single decision I made in my life that was fully backed up by thousands of scientists. In the end there is always the risk a decision was made based on false or not completly correct evidence.
The question is never if you can be 100% shure, it's always the question: can you be shure enough.
And science is never by 100% shure; one core rule of a scientific finding: It is considered true until proven otherwise. At least science acknowledges this ever existing flaw in itself, while religion doesn't and claims to be always the truth, no matter what.
In this case we can be shure enough to decide: Fight fucking global warming until it's too late. If it's too late: At least we tried and then face the consequences. If it's not: There you have something mankind can be proud of and globalisation at least brought something good by combining global forces to prevent something to happen.
Which I am not very optimistic about BTW. And this thread shows why.
Well, in Amerigo Vespucci-Land (A.V.L.), Climate changes you!
Code:
Which I am not very optimistic about BTW. And this thread shows why. if any of you fsckz actually cared, you would ask different questions and most important of all: come up with potential solutions. complaining whiners..
p.s. fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu! :-)
New Scientist is generally pretty worthless pop science drivel. Not just with regards to global warming, mind you, but click around a bit and you'll run into this:
Is that the scientific consensus at the moment? That global warming is going to "wreck" the planet's climate? What does that mean, exactly? Certainly scary words, and a typical example of the type of doomsday imagery perpetuated by incompetent, attention-whoring reporters, and ditto politicians. And it seeps right into Krabob's defenseless brain. :(
On a side note, I'm actually surprised that 18% of the Earth scientists polled didn't think human activity was a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. (And you might wonder how many of the other 82% actually think the "change" we're causing is global cooling, or were unclear on what was meant by "significant", but polls will be polls.) Usually scientific consensus leaves much fewer such non-believers.
Quote:
CARBON is a dirty word. We burn too much of it, producing billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide that threatens to wreck our planet's climate for generations to come.
Is that the scientific consensus at the moment? That global warming is going to "wreck" the planet's climate? What does that mean, exactly? Certainly scary words, and a typical example of the type of doomsday imagery perpetuated by incompetent, attention-whoring reporters, and ditto politicians. And it seeps right into Krabob's defenseless brain. :(
On a side note, I'm actually surprised that 18% of the Earth scientists polled didn't think human activity was a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. (And you might wonder how many of the other 82% actually think the "change" we're causing is global cooling, or were unclear on what was meant by "significant", but polls will be polls.) Usually scientific consensus leaves much fewer such non-believers.
Quote:
In this case we can be shure enough to decide: Fight fucking global warming until it's too late. If it's too late: At least we tried and then face the consequences. If it's not: There you have something mankind can be proud of and globalisation at least brought something good by combining global forces to prevent something to happen.
No, if it's too late: then at least we wasted countless billions on cutting emissions while millions of children starved to death. That's better than having spent all that money where we could have made a difference, right? Does the term "genocidal stupidity" seem at all relevant here?
yasso: you can't even tell me how much C02 should "naturally" occur in the atmosphere. Yet you want me to have faith & just believe that human emissions are a danger. How much so? Give me some of those magical numbers damn it! I want a ratio of naturally occurring CO2 to the quantity produced by human activity - then I may begin to believe your argument (depending on how large our contribution of CO2 is, as a proportion).
Well that's something we can both definitely agree on. It definitely *IS* regressive mystical [url=http://
Quote:
It's pure numerology—you can't argue with numbers.
Well that's something we can both definitely agree on. It definitely *IS* regressive mystical [url=http://
*Well that's something we can both definitely agree on. It definitely *IS* regressive mystical numerology