[Captainstabbin]

(05-28-2015 12:44 AM)The_CEO Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 12:26 AM)Captainstabbin Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 11:28 PM)The_CEO Wrote:  

Just so you know, your statement is what's known as a "strawman argument".
"All the global warming activists..."
"All the environmental activists..."

How is citing the consensus a straw man argument? It would only be a straw man if he's misrepresenting the proposed solutions to make it easier to attack. Most climate alarmists are indeed proposing tax hikes and regulations.

It would be a straw man if he attacked them for wanting to cause massive droughts by turning available water back into ice.

Roast Beef Curtains was creating a fictitious persona, "all 'whoever'" and then arguing against it.

Give some specific examples with references vs. "all global warming activists" and "all the environmental activists" b/c they do not "all" want these things.

Relevant:
-This reasoning is a fallacy of relevance: it fails to address the proposition in question by misrepresenting the opposing position.
-Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
-Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.

So that I'm not putting words in your mouth, are you suggesting that proposed solutions to global warming don't involve taxes and regulations?

I spent 30 minutes searching climate change sites and couldn't find one that didn't propose at least one but usually both.

[FilipSRB]

Western world rapidly consumes resources and pollutes the enviroment during it industrialization without a care in the world until China and other states start to catch up, and then we decide that it has become a problem.

The data has been tampered and falsified with, the loudest agitators for change are hypocrites, and nobody wants to acutally invest in proper technology. Thorium reactors will fire up in China first, while Germany is shutting down its nuclear power plants. Somebody is making a ton of money on wind and solar power sheenanigans though.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

The global Warming scam is one of the most ridiculous out there.

The facts:

+ Global Cooling was foreseen in the 1970s
+ No global warming for over 18 years:

+ No scientific consensus at all http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.c...=478&h=338
+ Climategate emails shown very strong explicit tampering of data and facts
+ All climate models do not account for the bloody sun which varies in intensity - like at all!
+ Even the old graphs show that CO2 rose hundreds of years after temperature
+ We have barely left a global mini ice age from 1350-1600 - warmer is better
+ more CO2 is better - greater plant growth - maybe Greenland will be warm again as around the years zero and the year 1000, when Vikings lived there

And here a few other facts:
   

   

   

And the latest scam - widespread global tempering of temperature data:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colum...ation.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11367...rming.html

So - yeah since there is no warming, the bloody assholes have started faking data.

Even the bloody Telegraph calls it "Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation".

But sure - here you are as the enlightened Red Pill poster who criticizes Heartiste for not believing every mainstream crap dished out.

Anyone who researches the subject and observes the massive frauds going on - the billions or trillions being pumped into useless bird-killing ineffective wind-technology or in solar-powered crap fields, should realize that fuel at 25$ / gallon will only result in no private vehicles. Oh - and what a surprise - that is exactly where the global NGOs and the UN wants to go long-term. Agenda 21 will show you exactly what Global Warming is about:

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

Based on my reading of various facts and studies, I am pretty sure that there is some global warming ongoing and that it will get worse. However, after making that conclusion I am the most annoyed by leftist and ecological hypocrites, not the coal industry, oil industry or global warming deniers. Clamoring about climate change and CO2 when you take intercontinental jet trips 10 times per year is ludicrous - and I'm talking just normal white collar people here, not celebrities and politicians who are especially offending.

You can't build a hydropower plant because it endangers frogs, you can't build a coal-fired plant in the desolate wilderness because it will ruin the wilderness but you also can't build it in an inhabited area because it will pollute people's homes, you can't build a nuclear power plant because of radiation, you can't build wind turbines because they kill birds, you can't build solar plants because they use too much space...
- the chant of the perpetually offended ecological activist

[ElBorrachoInfamoso]

Anyone who blindly drinks the global warming kool-aid should watch this video of Freeman Dyson explaining his views on the subject.

This particular brand of skepticism is pretty common among theoretical physicists and I can attest that most of us arrive at it independently i.e. it is what happens when smart people think critically about the issue and do not blindly follow the masses.

[Hardy Daytona]

Very relevant

[Atlanta Man]

(05-27-2015 11:15 PM)AntiTrace Wrote:  

Aside from political agendas, how do you guys individually feel about global warming?

Complete bullshit?
On the fence, evidence goes back and forth?
Its obvious?

The Last Psychiatrist put it best, if you know carbon has mass then you know global warming is real. I know carbon has mass so.....

[SheriffBart]

Bottom line: Civilization depends on carbon based energy. Replace it with something cheaper and cleaner or quit wasting my time. I don't really see anything else to talk about.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

(05-28-2015 03:36 AM)ElBorrachoInfamoso Wrote:  

Anyone who blindly drinks the global warming kool-aid should watch this video of Freeman Dyson explaining his views on the subject.

This particular brand of skepticism is pretty common among theoretical physicists and I can attest that most of us arrive at it independently i.e. it is what happens when smart people think critically about the issue and do not blindly follow the masses.

Great video. And I am grateful to Mr. Dyson so speaking so clearly in his British accent that even my poor damaged ears can understand everything without needing any subtitles

[RedPillUK]

I haven't really researched global warming/climate change, but one thing I do know that some islands in the pacific, only a couple miles above sea level, in the nation of Kiribati have gone underwater.

The government has already bought land and islands of another country and is planning to evacuate the whole population. There's no maybe there, they know its happening, and they're all making plans to say goodbye to their home, forever.

Why do I need more evidence than that this is a problem?

edit: I'm not being rhetorical, I'm genuinely interested if I'm missing something here. isn't that proof of rising sea levels being a problem? are you trying to say that it's not us that is causing that, or that it's the enviroment doing it on its own? If that's what you mean then I'll go back and re-read what people are trying to say.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

That video is also great on CNBC - the look on the face of the Stanford professor is fantastic.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(05-28-2015 04:04 AM)RedPillUK Wrote:  

I haven't really researched global warming/climate change, but one thing I do know that some islands in the pacific, only a couple miles above sea level, in the nation of Kiribati have gone underwater.

The government has already bought land and islands of another country and is planning to evacuate the whole population. There's no maybe there, they know its happening, and they're all making plans to say goodbye to their home, forever.

Why do I need more evidence than that this is a problem?

Very funny.

Quote:

In 2008, presidential candidate Barack Obama proclaimed, “This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow.” He was actually right. Sea level rise has slowed, but not because of CO2 emissions, which are still increasing. Mother Nature cannot be bought.

Sea level changes over relatively recent geologic and human history demonstrate that alarmist claims do not withstand scrutiny. Sea levels rose significantly after the last ice age, fell during the Little Ice Age, and have been rising again since the LIA ended around 1850. In fact, Roman Empire and Medieval port cities are now miles from the Mediterranean, because sea levels actually fell during the Little Ice Age.

During the deepest part of the last ice age, known as the Wisconsin, sea levels were about 400 feet lower than at present. As Earth emerged from the Wisconsin some 18,000 years ago and the massive ice sheets started to melt, sea levels began rising. Rapid sea level rise during the “meltwater pulse phase,” about 15,000 years ago, was roughly five meters (16 feet) per century – but then slowed significantly since the Holocene Climate Optimum, about 8,000 years ago.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/02/hi...el-claims/





And again - the Telegraph is stating the opposite of your bloody "scientific" claims. They claim that the Island MAY BE UNDER WATER by 2060. Or maybe not....

Quote:

Pacific islands 'growing not shrinking' due to climate change
Low-lying Pacific islands regarded as "poster child" examples of the threat from rising sea levels are expanding not sinking, a new study has revealed.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew...hange.html

Quote:

In the study, researchers compared aerial photographs and high-resolution satellite images of 27 islands taken since the 1950s.
Only four islands, mostly uninhabited, had decreased in area despite local sea level rises of almost five inches in that time, while 23 stayed the same or grew.
Seven islands in Tuvalu grew, one by 30 per cent, although the study did not include the most populous island.

In Kiribati, the three of the most densely populated islands, Betio, Bairiki and Nanikai, also grew by between 12.5 and 30 per cent.

OK - now "RedPillUK" - where are the homeless islanders?

Also Al Gore is not concerned with the sea level rise since he bought a beach front property:
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2010/05...nt-of.html

[RedPillUK]

Very Funny? I'm not trying to be a dick here, I dunno why you are "Zelcorpion".

You post me stats showing fluctuating sea levels over 100 years, and rising sea levels over thousands of years. And then some facts about sea levels rising and falling again over thousands of years, its hard to understand what it or you is actually trying to say. I've re-read it a lot of times. I'm not deliberately trying to misunderstand you, its just not very clear. Yes leaving a miniature ice age does mean sea levels are rising from that. I want to talk about the last 10-50 years though.

That bolded section you highlighted is pretty stupid. 27 islands is hardly a sample size and growing islands doesn't mean shit all to the people there, when its just masses of sand, and their plants and trees are underwater. They don't take that into account because it's just studies on aerial photographs.

My information is from someone who travelled there in the early 2000's to the main island of Kiribati and then returned 10 years later to find that the tide was coming in so far to destroy the their gardens and killing their trees. Also villages on the north of the island had tried to block the incoming tide but failed and eventually had to be evacuated. He did mention sand banks had grown on some parts of the island, but thats not exactly land you can farm or build on.

He wrote about living there in the books sex lives of savages, and headhunters on my doorstep by J Marteen Troost. Not many westerners have been there or written about it, so its the probably the best information you can find about the country.

The nation has bought land in another country, I forget which, and IS planning to evacuate them, they know they cannot stay in this place forever. Their government is trying to make this known and asking for help from other nations.

[Geomann180]

I think Global Warming/Climategate is utter bullshit, an agenda pushed on the rest of us "for our own good". Why do you guys who distrust what the current establishment tells about relations between the sexes trust them as an authority on anything else?

To mirror George Carlin's thoughts from the previously posted video - 90% of what has lived on the earth has died. It's been here for around 4.5 billion years and we've been here for barely even a fraction of that time. The planet is fine - long term - we are fucked.

But that's the cycle of life, baby.

(05-27-2015 10:15 PM)Saladin Wrote:  

Here's a response to the Forbes Article on the same subject.

http://www.atmos.illinois.edu/~wlchapma/...sponse.pdf

So yes, there has been a trend of decreasing sea ice.

The vast majority of the scientific community, especially climatologists agrees that global warming is real and a major issue.

Considering how much money the fossil fuel lobby and the industries that depend on denying global warming have, its a wonder that there's such a strong consensus on global warming in the scientific community.

I'll just leave this here.

Global warmists get stuck in ice

G

[RedPillUK]

I don't get it, that article just said stuff like some scientists are saying its cooling, it doesn't come to any conclusions, just that its not as straightforward as global 'warming'. It just reads like nitpicking, Al Gore has 3 beachside properties so it cant actually be a problem!

It's the same as religious people trying to say you cant prove evolution because you can't find the missing link! and then when scientists find one, they want another missing link.

[Double Salad]

Quote:

We're supposed to be skeptical and believe in science.

This is my favorite part from OP. Sions is the new religion, why do you think the white coats?

Apparently 'Climategate' has gone down the memory hole, whereas various emails of ICC leadership were leaked, i.e. they're all lying and fudging data...

Forbes Article 2011

Quote:

Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

- Plants love C02
- Taxation is basically the proposed solution
- The elites want the peasants to live a more austere lifestyle

[Geomann180]

(05-28-2015 05:56 AM)RedPillUK Wrote:  

I don't get it, that article just said stuff like some scientists are saying its cooling, it doesn't come to any conclusions, just that its not as straightforward as global 'warming'. It just reads like nitpicking, Al Gore has 3 beachside properties so it cant actually be a problem!

It's the same as religious people trying to say you cant prove evolution because you can't find the missing link! and then when scientists find one, they want another missing link.

The analogy you make is incorrect. Zelcorpion includes that tid-bit about Al Gore to point out the disconnect between his rhetoric and his actions.

That is to say, if he sincerely believed in global warming, and that water levels were rising, don't you think it would be a bad investment to buy not one, but three beach properties?

G

[Guitarman]

I'd just like to thank Zelcorpion and Geomann for posting the data and graphs etc and saving me having to do it. Becoming a global warming realist is another step along the red pill path. If you still truly believe the hype and B$ that man is ruining the planet by emitting what is relatively a tiny proportion of a naturally occurring, beneficial ( actually VITAL) to nature, gas. Then I'm afraid you are still in some ways quite blue pill.

[It_is_my_time]

When you see the western globalist elitists all back the same cause, and the solution is more taxes on the middle class, all the while they do the exact opposite of their proposed new life style changes, you know you have to question it.

The elitists stand to make billions off this, yet they still fly around the world in their private jets and enjoy their multiple large mansions, and tell the rest of us we need to learn to live less modern conveniences.

I will not come out and say Global Warming doesn't exist, but until I see the elites leading the way and severely cutting their extravagant life style and coming up with a real solution that isn't more taxes on the middle class, will I listen to what they say.

[Libertas]

(05-27-2015 11:22 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

I don't think the science is conclusive at all. Every time someone posts a chart of correlation between CO2 and temp, I ask, "How do we know there's a causation?"

Every single time there's a rise or fall in CO2, there's a rise or fall in temperature (though the peaks and valleys are not a perfect fit). That's pretty damn indicative of causation.



Of course one could argue that it's the opposite that's true - that temperature causes the changes in CO2, but the overwhelming consensus of the planet's scientists says that's not the case. Unfortunately it's hard to find a source that isn't so swayed to one side or the other.

(05-27-2015 11:33 PM)kmhour Wrote:  

Has humanity contributed to the change of the climate? I don't doubt that emissions, industrial activity, deforestation, and other behavior has an influence outside of the planet's natural variation.

Are people causing catastrophic, irreversible, cataclysmic damage to the planet because they won't buy a Prius? No, not in my opinion. That's hubristic dogma of a religious caliber.

The crux is whether or not human activity is enough to tip the balance. A small change in the natural equilibrium can have a chain reaction. That's why people that make a fuss about humanity only contributing, say, a few % of the CO2 emissions are coming from the wrong premise. It's whether that few % is enough to tip the scales and cause a chain reaction in the ecosystem.

(05-28-2015 05:48 AM)Geomann180 Wrote:  

I think Global Warming/Climategate is utter bullshit, an agenda pushed on the rest of us "for our own good". Why do you guys who distrust what the current establishment tells about relations between the sexes trust them as an authority on anything else?

Because it's demonstrably wrong, both with a massive array of studies and what we experience in our day to day lives.

Not so simple with this topic.

As for solar and wind being the way forward, I don't think so. The former requires a fossil economy to be manufactured and has a negative EROI. Not as sure about wind. Maybe solar will improve but it's been a long time now, and those two sources of energy, by themselves, won't be enough to ensure continued growth.

I think our resources are better spent on building those thorium reactors. Laughably, the US is currently helping China construct one, but we aren't building our own.

[Guitarman]

It's actually temperature changes that cause CO2 levels to change. This is well documented in the Vostock ice core research.

The reason is quite simple; the solubility of a gas in a solvent is inversely proportional to the temperature of that solvent . So in the case of sea water being the solvent and CO2 the gas then as global temperatures rise ( caused by the sun and orbital / cosmic influences) then after a time lag the oceans warm, more CO2 is released from the ocean into the atmosphere. Due to the inertia in the system we see a time lag of between 4-600 years between atmospheric temp rises and following them CO2 rises.

CO2 has no power to alter atmospheric temperature.

[Tailgunner]

Beat me to it G-man, well said.
CO2 lags temperature rise by up to 800 years historically.
Anthropogenic global warming is the biggest hoax the world has ever seen. The sad thing is the damage that will be done to the credibility of science in general when this house of cards finally collapses under the weight of evidence (or non-evidence).
The costs of this hoax are astronomical in economic terms. The little cabal of AGW alarmist scientists and Green polticians should be tried Nuremburg style when it's all over.
Any believers here should really take a look at themselves and seek out some facts instead of swallowing the bullshit fed to them by pseudo-scientists on the climate change gravy train.
No warming "crisis" means no more grant money.

[Darius]

(05-28-2015 07:53 AM)Tailgunner Wrote:  

No warming "crisis" means no more grant money.

This is the biggest problem with Science today.

Science is supposed to be coming up with a hypothesis and then testing it.

Today it's about proving that a desired belief is true.

[Captainstabbin]

(05-28-2015 06:09 AM)Double Salad Wrote:  

Quote:

We're supposed to be skeptical and believe in science.

This is my favorite part from OP. Sions is the new religion, why do you think the white coats?

Apparently 'Climategate' has gone down the memory hole, whereas various emails of ICC leadership were leaked, i.e. they're all lying and fudging data...

This is bizarre to me. We have convincing evidence that both the conclusions and the underlying data itself were faked. Even the "studies" showing that a consensus of scientists agree are demonstrably faked. Yet people still hold to those conclusions like gospel.

The only explanation is that people still believe what mainstream media tells them. The media doesn't mention Climategate - so people forget about it. Either that or people are so in love with the narrative that they'll ignore the facts.

It's no different than the college rape narrative. We all know that the "studies" have been fudged to show a higher number of rapes. We all know that, when one of these women is exposed as a liar, she's excused because "it doesn't matter, college rape is a serious problem and needs to be addressed"...the narrative becomes more important than the facts.

[Dr. Howard]

Ok, I hate these global warming threads. A bunch of armchair scientists getting things mixed up.

Let me give you my background with climate change before offering my opinions on it. I worked as a political advisor to a state governor's office for my department and my only job for 2 years was to find out 'what is the deal with climate change in our state and what does it mean for my specific department' I didn't just read the opinions of climatologists, I got to grill them and work with them on a regular basis...this included both some of the 'new guys' and some of the nobel prize awarded folks from the original. I also got to work with carbon credit lobbyists and sketchy 'expert' firms that were providing the same advice to virtually every state. Day after day I interviewed these people with the same questions "do you have any climate change related data?, where did it come from? is there a relationship to CO2? What are the current are future impacts?" AFTER that assignment I then went on to work for an international agency that was using charity as a front for private investments trying to game a pending global carbon credit market.

So, in my opinion, if we use a game analogy, I have multiple international climate change notches while everyone else posting here is a basement dwelling bronie who read what the pussy of climate change feels like on the internet or maybe finger banged it one time like RedpillUK.

Onto my opinions.

So, point one is to separate climate change from Global warming. Climate change is strictly "has the climate changed from point X in time to a level where it impacts humans and/or ecology" Global warming is "man made CO2 emissions are the source of climate change"

Climate Change, in the state I worked in was a yes, I repeat a YES when comparing it to 1900 (which was an unusually cold period of time). The biggest local evidence was state records of when lakes froze and thawed, combined with 100 years worth of records of bird migration and wildflower blooming times...in addition to plain old weather records. Those weather records, specifically related to farming showed that farmers had an additional 2 weeks of growing season vs. 100 years ago.

Is Global Warming real? I am not convinced. The models that the climate scientists were running changed based o more energy being retained in atmospheric systems. There was then an assumption of a global greenhouse retaining more energy and then another assumption that CO2 concentrations altered that greenhouse as opposed to fine particulate matter or other way more powerful 'greenhouse gas' chemicals. It seemed like too many assumption leaps to make the CO2 to climate change connection for me to believe it as fact. The climate change scientists also aren't bullshitters, they lay out the model confidence and stress what the assumptions are, its non-scientist types that then ignore the assumptions assume its 100 percent fact.

Climate Change (remember thats not Global Warming) is a bitch, regardless of what causes it. This is because our historic engineering and planning never thought "hey, what if we experience climate variability" That climate variability fucks with reservoir designs, disease vectors, stormwater engineering, winter tourism, winter logging, coastal roads and cities, saltwater infiltration and coastal military installations. These problems exist with warming OR cooling that happens at a rate beyond what we as humans can easily adapt to. So lets put that bitch to bed, Climate Change is a real phenomenon and can fuck with your shit if you are a farmer, forester, epidemiologist, civil engineer or military strategist with a 100 year planning horizon.

Trying to stop climate change by controlling CO2 emissions is a sham. Its an attempt to create a new economy out of nothing. People that already have investments in 'green' things like solar power, tropical forestry plantations and conservation land masses want to monetize them at the expense of the coal, oil and gas industry. The total combined reductions from human kind to actually change global CO2 emissions is huge, like world altering huge, whereas all of the US based initiatives are things that are 'in the works' already but would just become more profitable or feasible with a CO2 market or carbon tax. The most important thing to realize about CO2 based controls on global warming is that there are people poised to make huge amounts of money with each country that legally buys into it...at the expense of jacking up commodity and utility prices for your average joe. Again, I saw the projects, met the people behind them and saw the CO2 reductions they proposed vs. the grand scheme of things.

Global warming is about making money, not saving the planet whereas predicting and adapting to climate change is about human resilience to relatively high speed increases or decreases in long term weather patterns.

PS. precipitation changes related to climate change are substantially more important than temperature.

I welcome the opinions of other 'climate change players' with a high global warming notch count.