By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - They myth that is man made global warming.

akuma587 said:
Kasz216 said:
akuma587 said:

Oh, shit, they've got the Polish Academy of Sciences writing an article questioning whether man causes global warming. Global warming = sham confirmed.

This is what I think of when I hear people talk about Poland:

Yeah... ok. 

Either way. 

It was a "shortest distance" type thing.  Show an orgization doesn't hold that manmade global warming is true, by pointing out the one just mentioned.

There have been such drastic climate changes before... people just naturally want to feel responsible for everything and that everything is in there power.

That and the real scary thing nobody actually wants to talk about... and the real reason we want it to be man made is.

If it isn't.  There isn't shit you can do about it. 

So...is your argument that simply because it is possible that we might not be responsible for global warming that we should do absolutely nothing even though it would benefit us to move away from carbon based fuels anyway?  And when the alternative could potentially devestate the earth's entire ecosystem if we do decide to do nothing?  That doesn't sound like a winning argument to me.

Did you read my above post?  Cause no that's not what i'm saying.

What i'm saying is that governments should be honest with their people on why the things they want to get done are good ideas, rather then scare the fuck out of them with overblown fearmongering based on incomplete computer models based on guessing and bad math.

Though yeah.  If the people are given a well rationed, well explained arguement for why we should conserve fuel and energy and develop new technology and they say "No."

Then fuck it.  You gave people a choice and they screwed it up. 

Lieing to people on such a scale is never justified.



Around the Network

Reefer madness! (Except that was a bad idea powered by fearmongering...)



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

Well actually Obama has been pitching cap-and-trade most recently (as in two days ago) as something that will stimulate jobs and research. And I've seen a fair amount of Congressman say that this will reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy and will in the long run decrease our energy costs. So I don't think it is fair to say that they aren't making those arguments.

Ironically many of the people who were most against Obama raising fuel efficiency standards in the past few months are the same ones complaining about cap-and-trade.  And frankly there is no better way to directly reduce the amount of oil we have to import.  You are taking money out of the hands of terrorists.  Not to mention it gives Iran less bargaining chips because there economy relies so much on oil.

A pretty conservative journal even criticized them for making those arguments...so obviously they are making those arguments:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/625bhgao.asp

The 'Dependence on Foreign Oil' Canard
The worst justification yet for Obama's energy plan.
by Jeff Bergner
06/22/2009, Volume 014, Issue 38

Increase Font Size

 | 

Printer-Friendly

 | 

Email a Friend

 | 

Respond to this article


As the public's enthusiasm for a major new energy tax wanes, advocates of the administration's "cap and trade" emissions proposal have found a new justification: national security. We should adopt a cap and trade energy tax, they say, because this will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and thus strengthen America's national security. It is unsurprising that national security would be the last refuge of a policy that cannot be sold on its merits. But "energy independence" is a mantra that has been around for decades, with adherents across the political spectrum. Does it really wash as a rationale for cap and trade?



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Final-Fan said:
Kasz216 said:
Final-Fan said:
Kasz216 said:
Final-Fan said:
Final-Fan said:
Kasz216 said:
Final-Fan said:
scientific individuals != scientific organizations

The Polish Academy of Sciences isn't a scientific orginzation?

Now this is an actual answer.  I'll look into it.  

The Polish Academy of Sciences, based on a very brief search, certainly appears to be a scientific organization of national or international standing and considerable repute.  

I presume the dissention you attribute to them lies in their recent 10-point statement?  

(Quick refresher:  The statement that Wikipedia says isn't disputed is "An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.") 

I think the most relevant part of the PAS's statement is "That is why far-reaching restraint needs to be kept regarding blaming, or even giving the biggest credit to man for the increased level of emissions of greenhouse gases, for such a theory has not been proven".

The IPCC statement (judging by the portion quoted) is basically saying that the evidence is both becoming stronger and more certain.  The PAS statement is saying that the evidence needs to be stronger before some drastic steps now being proposed are justified.  

It seems to me that the PAS statement is (A) not incompatible with the IPCC 2001 statement, and (B) mainly aimed at policymakers who may be tempted to take "radical and expensive economic measures aiming at implementing the emission only of few greenhouse gases, with no multi-sided research into climate change" based on "politically correct lobbying, especially on the side of business marketing of exceptionally expensive, so called eco-friendly, energy technologies or those offering CO2 storage (sequestration) in exploited deposits".  

The PAS, it seems to me, is just trying to put some brakes on a potential runaway political train, not dissenting with the actual science of the IPCC.   

That's largely irrelevent. 

They're saying the proof isn't there yet.  Therefore dissenting those who claim their is concrete proof.

An alternate theory is not needed for disent.  Simply saying "We don't know yet... you don't really have proof" is disent.

So ... "An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities" is a claim of "concrete proof"?  
And I never said anything about needing an alternate theory.  That sounded ... largely irrelevant  

I'm guessing you haven't had much expierence with researchers.

The creedo of the researcher is "Speak heavy, write soft."

EVERY research paper ever written.  Or every good one uses speak like that.

I could be writing an article about how i did a study that seemed to show that people like Icecream better then killing kittens and it would be phrased....

"The research i've collected, along with previous studies and research seems to suggest that most people perfer icecream of just about any flavor to murdering young kittens."

It's just how your taught to write research papers... even if the ones where confidence is really needed like consumer research.

I guess I'd have to read the whole thing to say whether it's fair to say that the IPCC paper claimed "proof" (keeping in mind how seriously scientists take that word, and the PAS statement did use it).  I don't plan to for the sake of this thread.  But you're saying they definitely did?  

I'm sure they were claiming "proof" in the way the man on the street would use the term, but in the way a scientist would?  Not so sure.   

Scientists never claim proof in a scientic paper.  You'd be hard pressed for someone to claim proof so far as gravity is concerned in a scientific paper.

This is just how sceintific papers are written.

For their claims of proof i suggest looking at other IPCC papers.  For example

"Anthropogenic climate change adds a major pressure to nations that are already confronting the issue of sustainable freshwater use. The challenges related to freshwater are: having too much water, having too little water, and having too much pollution. Each of these problems may be exacerbated by climate change."

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tp-climate-change-water.htm

 



Kasz216 said:

Scientists never claim proof in a scientic paper.  You'd be hard pressed for someone to claim proof so far as gravity is concerned in a scientific paper.

This is just how sceintific papers are written.

For their claims of proof i suggest looking at other IPCC papers.  For example

"Anthropogenic climate change adds a major pressure to nations that are already confronting the issue of sustainable freshwater use. The challenges related to freshwater are: having too much water, having too little water, and having too much pollution. Each of these problems may be exacerbated by climate change."

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tp-climate-change-water.htm

 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007

In February 2007, the IPCC released a summary of the forthcoming Fourth Assessment Report. According to this summary, the Fourth Assessment Report finds that human actions are "very likely" the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability. Global warming in this case is indicated by an increase of 0.75 degrees in average global temperatures over the last 100 years.[3]



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Around the Network
Final-Fan said:
Reefer madness! (Except that was a bad idea powered by fearmongering...)

Most of them are.  Usually when you bring a good idea to people without fearmongering they'll say "Hey yeah.  This is a good idea."

I understand the frustration though. 

Governments have been trying to get people to cut back on gas and other energy spending forever without much success.  Way before the whole global warming thing hit the public consiousness in a big way. 

I mean hell look at how popular SUVs were.  Took the price of gas skyrocketing to get people to stop buying fucking military equipment to buy groceries.

 



Actually if you want to watch a really good pro-Christian anti-drug propaganda movie, watch Blood Freak. Its about this guy who does so many drugs that these hippies turn him into a rooster who goes around and kills people to drink their blood. Its way better than Reefer Madness.



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Well, I didn't mean I was going to look and see if they said "the word", just for the ability to make a judgement on how strong they considered their case to be; but they do seem to be treating it as a fact in that other item. On the other hand, that may be based on later assessments than the 2001 one? (I believe that was the 3rd, and the link you have is titled the 4th.)

Also, the PAS statement limits itself only to emissions, while the IPCC statement is about temperature. Plenty of human activity other than emissions can affect climate, right? So we can't say that the PAS has openly dissented the IPCC statement yet in any case.



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

Well, yeah, I agree that it could have to do with agricultural things as well. That is why there are provisions in the cap-and-trade legislation dealing with agriculture too.



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

akuma587 said:
Kasz216 said:
 

Scientists never claim proof in a scientic paper.  You'd be hard pressed for someone to claim proof so far as gravity is concerned in a scientific paper.

This is just how sceintific papers are written.

For their claims of proof i suggest looking at other IPCC papers.  For example

"Anthropogenic climate change adds a major pressure to nations that are already confronting the issue of sustainable freshwater use. The challenges related to freshwater are: having too much water, having too little water, and having too much pollution. Each of these problems may be exacerbated by climate change."

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tp-climate-change-water.htm

 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007

In February 2007, the IPCC released a summary of the forthcoming Fourth AsFourth Assessment Reportsessment Report. According to this summary, the Fourth Assessment Report finds that human actions are "very likely" the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability. Global warming in this case is indicated by an increase of 0.75 degrees in average global temperatures over the last 100 years.[3]

If they really do mean 90% probability, and aren't talking about the reliability of their statistics... then damn.  That's a poorly written paper almost certainlty done soley for poltical gain.

Which granted would be unsurprising from the IPCC.