Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
Global warming a hoax, says Senate testimony; Conspiracy!! NPR involved! Media! Libs!
Topic Started: Dec 6 2006, 08:46 PM (610 Views)
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Quote:
 
I'm hearing the agruement, "GW is natural so we don't have to change."

Even if GW IS natural humans can make choices that slow it, or not contribute to it as much as other choices.


I believe I have already said that reducing our negative effects on the environment is good for its own sake.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
Exactly, that's why we in Canada are going to regulate the oil companies so that they have to sequester CO2 rather than vent into the atmosphere. The technology is there it's just that big oil companies will not voluntarily cough up the investment unless they are regulated accordingly.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
AlbertaCrude
Dec 7 2006, 12:17 PM
Exactly, that's why we in Canada are going to regulate the oil companies so that they have to sequester CO2 rather than vent into the atmosphere. The technology is there it's just that big oil companies will not voluntarily cough up the investment unless they are regulated accordingly.

It sounds a lot like fascism to me.... :D
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
Not at all, it's call good governance coupled with a policy of sustainable development.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
The Government has released the "Skeptics Guide to Global Warming." You can download the 64 page PDF from a link on this page. I'll be interested to see what people have to say after they look at it.

Quote:
 
The book, which features web links to all supporting documentation, also serves as a handbook to identify the major players in media bias when it comes to poor climate science reporting. The guide presents a reporter’s virtual who’s-who’s of embarrassing and one-sided media coverage, with a focus on such reporters as CBS News “60 Minutes” Scott Pelley, ABC News reporter Bill Blakemore, CNN’s Miles O’Brien, and former NBC Newsman Tom Brokaw.

Senator Inhofe’s “Skeptic’s Guide” also includes hard hitting critiques of the New York Times, Time Magazine, Newsweek, Associated Press, Reuters, the LA Times, the Chicago Tribune, and the Washington Post.

Senator Inhofe has challenged the media in a series of speeches and hearings to stop the unfounded hype.

“The American people are fed up with media for promoting the idea that former Vice President Al Gore represents the scientific “consensus” that SUV’s and the modern American way of life have somehow created a “climate emergency” that only United Nations bureaucrats and wealthy Hollywood liberals can solve.”

Skepticism that human C02 emissions are creating a “climate catastrophe” has grown in recent times. In September, renowned French geophysicists and Socialist Party member Claude Allegre, converted from a believer in manmade catastrophic global warming to a climate skeptic. This latest defector from the global warming camp caps a year in which numerous scientific studies have bolstered the claims of climate skeptics.

Scientific studies that debunk the dire predictions of human-caused global warming have continued to accumulate and many believe the new science is shattering the media-promoted scientific “consensus” on climate alarmism. See: http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ny1911
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
kenny
Dec 7 2006, 08:30 AM
I'm hearing the agruement, "GW is natural so we don't have to change."

Even if GW IS natural humans can make choices that slow it, or not contribute to it as much as other choices.

We should only endeavor to eliminate the human component. The law of unintended consequences applies to artificially slowing global climate change just as it does to accelerating it.
So live your life and live it well.
There's not much left of me to tell.
I just got back up each time I fell.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ny1911
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
Here's junkscience's thrashing of the data
So live your life and live it well.
There's not much left of me to tell.
I just got back up each time I fell.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
David Burton
Senior Carp
89th - "1) Climate change is happening, although very slowly, and is usually just part of Earth's climate patterns...although we do need to clean up our act regardless, since it could only help, especially with the ever-increasing world population which leads to resource consumption and energy emissions."

Points:

A. - The more pricing is dictated by the market; supply and demand and not some stupid and meddlesome government policy, the more alternatives will take the place of traditional sources of energy; commodities.

And

B - The more property is in private hands worldwide, the more "cleanup" will occur as a matter of course.

89th - "2) The media is VERY biased in this area, making the issue WAY more urgent and often blamed for natural events like forest fires and hurricanes. But that's what sells! Same reason we see stories about violence in Iraq more than heart warming stories. It's all about the moolah!"

The media is biased because they make their money getting everyone's attention while they report on the activities of the people they supported for being in office; the government and its policies rather than countless minor and not newsworthy acts by private people everywhere who are usually blamed for their inattention. And yes there is PLENTY of money at stake.
Science! Sheesh!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Junk science == Steve Milloy

Quote:
 

Milloy is a paid advocate for Phillip Morris, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, and ExxonMobil.[5][26][6][10] The content of junkscience.com, which is represented as independent, has been reviewed, revised, and edited by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company.[6]

In January 2006, Paul D. Thacker reported in The New Republic that Milloy, who is presented by Fox News as an independent journalist, was under contract to Philip Morris through the end of 2005.[5] Philip Morris documents reveal that Milloy was budgeted hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments while writing for FoxNews.com.[10] In the May/Jun 2005 issue of Mother Jones, Chris Mooney reported that non-profit organizations operated out of Milloy's home have also received large payments from ExxonMobil during his tenure with Fox News.[27][5]


Note that in an unprecedented step the royal society have actually spoke out against Exxon mobile for misrepresenting science.

The arguments Milloy presents are deconstructed here (the piece is very short it just looks long because there are many replies):

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...ience/#more-367

by these guys
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

The law of unintended consequences applies to artificially slowing global climate change just as it does to accelerating it.


Right because not disrupting the carbon cycle is obviously "artificially slowing global warming".
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ny1911
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
So you think it is OK for human intervention to decelerate climate change but not to accelerate it?
So live your life and live it well.
There's not much left of me to tell.
I just got back up each time I fell.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
My point was that cutting down on emissions is not "artificially" slowing climate change. Burning fossil fuels on the other hand is playing some role in it's cause.

As to your question, the word "artificial" has no negative connotations for me. I don't care what is natural, i care what is beneficial.

Global warming seems to be bad news, if i were involved i would certainly consider mega engineering projects very carefully because the environment is complex but a proactive stance does not seem inherently unreasonable apriori.

The law of intended consequences can be evoked to oppose anything and everything, where would vacines and medical operations be if we always afraid to do anything? The answer is not to run away it's to learn from mistakes and to weigh the available information rationally.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ny1911
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
Moonbat
Dec 8 2006, 02:34 PM
My point was that cutting down on emissions is not "artificially" slowing climate change. Burning fossil fuels on the other hand is playing some role in it's cause.

As to your question, the word "artificial" has no negative connotations for me. I don't care what is natural, i care what is beneficial.

Global warming seems to be bad news, if i were involved i would certainly consider mega engineering projects very carefully because the environment is complex but a proactive stance does not seem inherently unreasonable apriori.

The law of intended consequences can be evoked to oppose anything and everything, where would vacines and medical operations be if we always afraid to do anything? The answer is not to run away it's to learn from mistakes and to weigh the available information rationally.

But the discussion point was not about cutting down emissions, it was about reversing global warming. My point was that we should not try to alter natural climate change. I said in an earlier post that the human component should be reduced, but that does not mean I believe that we should take measures to affect a naturally ocurring climate change that we don't like.

We evoke the law of unintended consequences as a concern when the system has too many variables and too many unknowns. Sometimes the risks outweigh the benefits. But if human input into the climate causing it to warm is considered "bad", human input that causes it to cool likely is as well since neither system response is totally predictable.

edit to say that I agree that a proactive stance is a good policy.
So live your life and live it well.
There's not much left of me to tell.
I just got back up each time I fell.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
Learn More · Register Now
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2