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 on 27 June 2009
HappySqurriel said:

One thing I want to ask global warming supporters is what makes them believe that they’re getting fair and reliable information about global warming?

Enron was one of the first companies to really get onto the global warming bandwagon, and spent a fortune lobbying the government because they believed global warming regulation would "do more to promote Enron’s business than almost any other regulatory initiative outside of restructuring the energy and natural gas industries in Europe and the United States." Enron wasn't the only company doing this, and companies like GE and Dow Chemicals have spent billions of dollars lobbying the govenment and funding Global Warming research so they can be in a position to make hundreds of billions of dollars when regulations like Cap-n-Trade are put in place.

Knowing full well that the science is funded by, the politicians are dependant on the donations from, and large portions of the media are owned by companies who benefit from global warming hysteria why do you accept everything you're told without questioning any of it?

And the information you are relying on is somehow less impeachable?  Your argument really gets you nowhere.  If anything, the information you are relying on seems to be more inherently vulnerable to bias because there is less volume of research out there claiming that global warming is not caused by man.  So really I think your argument hurts your position more than it does those who think global warming is caused by humans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Economic_and_political_debate

Business-centered organizations, conservative commentators, and companies such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute and ExxonMobil have downplayed IPCC climate change scenarios, funded scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus, and provided their own projections of the economic cost of stricter controls.[108][109][110][111]

  1. ^ Begley, Sharon (2007-08-13). "The Truth About Denial". Newsweek. http://www.newsweek.com/id/32482. Retrieved on 2007-08-13. 
  2. ^ Adams, David (2006-09-20). "Royal Society tells Exxon: stop funding climate change denial". The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/20/oilandpetrol.business. Retrieved on 2007-08-09. 
  3. ^ "Exxon cuts ties to global warming skeptics". MSNBC. 2007-01-12. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16593606. Retrieved on 2007-05-02. 
  4. ^ Sandell, Clayton (2007-01-03). "Report: Big Money Confusing Public on Global Warming". ABC. http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Business/story?id=2767979&page=1. Retrieved on 2007-04-27.


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
Slimebeast on 27 June 2009

What I always wonder is what these environmentalists believe will or could happen if this so called 'man made climate change/global warming' wouldn't be stopped.

I wish they could quantify it a little more. What will happen and when? If we're gonna put hundreds of billions of Dollars into this project, I'd like to know what it is that we will avoid and gain.

Let's say we kept pumping CO2 at current levels (and with a steady rize because of developing economies) - what do they think will happen?

Will sea levels rise 10 meters so that hundreds of millions of people in nations like Hollland and Bangladesh will be flooded?
Will the polar bears get extinct?
Will we all be fried by the sun?

And when will it start??



HappySqurriel on 27 June 2009

Akuma,

You didn't really answer my question ...

The interesting thing about science is that it is not a popularity contest, and a million people who each wrote dozens of studies trying to demonstrate a hypothesis is correct can all be proven wrong by one person with one piece of data. It is unscientific to continue to blindly support an unchanged hypothesis when there is data available which questions the correctness of the hypothesis. Insisting that people must do so because some authoritarian group says we must believe in the hypothesis, and we must repent in our evil ways, is far more in line with how religion works.

Now, there exists data which disproves man-made global warming until the hypothesis is adjusted and validated, and there are viable alternative hypothesis which should also be considered. Why do you blindly continue to support a discredited hypothesis that is being pushed by people who benefit if governments act upon it, without considering the alternatives?

Personally, I consider all possiblities and support any actions that can be taken to reduce any human involvement in the climate (and for humans to adjust to a new climate) where the impact on our current lifestyles is minimal; basically I support due diligence in protecting the climate under the realization that current hypothesis are most likely incorrect, inaccurate and incomplete.

I don't really have a "Dog in this fight" except to try to protect everyone from a group of morons who don't understand the scientific method, and abuse the system for personal gain at the expense of everyone.



mrstickball on 27 June 2009
megaman79 said:
Man, r u serious? Have u looked at the pathetic % of money BP put into green tech? Its basically nothing.

"Environmental campaigners always dismissed the "Beyond Petroleum" campaign and said BP's much advertised investments in green energy, which represented about 1 percent of the company's total capital expenditure in recent years, was simply a token."

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSWLB778620080228

And don't forget that for atleast the last 10 yrs all these companies have worked very hard on manufacturing doubts in the public and governments.

And how much of BP's total capital expenditure is spent on R&D as a whole?



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

mrstickball on 27 June 2009

Ah, here we go:

http://www.bp.com/assets/bp_internet/globalbp/STAGING/global_assets/downloads/B/bp_first_quarter_2009_results.pdf

According to BP's Q1 fiscal results, they only spent 2.1% of capital expenditures on things other than exploration, production, marketing, and refining. Since this is the case, shouldn't you be saying that BP isn't spending enough on R&D as a whole, rather than green tech? From what it looks like, a significant portion of their R&D is spent on renewables, as per your article.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Around the Network
highwaystar101 on 27 June 2009

With all respect I can see why people like to debate this point as it is not a black and white issue by any means. But can people stop saying 'global warming'? All it does is show that you don't know much about climate change, the earth isn't 'just' going to get warmer, just more extreme.

I mean for the past two years in England we have had two of the rainiest summers on record due to climate change. and it will continue.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2003/dec/10/lifeonlineaguidetotheinternet.environment

The changes wont stop in some areas precipitation will increase and in some it will decrease. We will see failed crops and frequent flooding in some places and droughts in others.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8107014.stm

My girlfriends dad did his PHd based on climate models and he has told me that the media overblow the situation very much, but he also says it is definitely happening and requires action.

I wish I could say it isn't happening, but to be quite frank I have read far too much evidence supporting the hypothesis. Even if it was a 50/50 issue for me I would still want to make energy saving sacrifices just in case, because I do not want to see my country potentially in ruins.

It upsets me that people are unwilling to make the minuscule sacrifices, it really does. I mean how much does a low energy bulb cost as opposed to a regular one?



highwaystar101 on 27 June 2009
mrstickball said:
Ah, here we go:

http://www.bp.com/assets/bp_internet/globalbp/STAGING/global_assets/downloads/B/bp_first_quarter_2009_results.pdf

According to BP's Q1 fiscal results, they only spent 2.1% of capital expenditures on things other than exploration, production, marketing, and refining. Since this is the case, shouldn't you be saying that BP isn't spending enough on R&D as a whole, rather than green tech? From what it looks like, a significant portion of their R&D is spent on renewables, as per your article.

BP know, as well as many other oil companies, that the race is on to develop more efficient fuels. It makes good sense to invest to be honest.



elprincipe on 27 June 2009
megaman79 said:
elprincipe said:
megaman79 said:
All i can say is goodluck because NOBODY believes the sceptics anymore. Do your research and stop making threads about propaganda that is not only ignored by many other politicians and governments but also completely irresponsible.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116590/increased-number-think-global-warming-exaggerated.aspx

I know if i was driving a 6 cylinder 4X4 and i was a citizen of the country with the highest use of oil and also the largest polluting country (china's per capita makes them technically much better at energy use) on earth i would be in denial about its influence.

Ofcourse i could also use statistics relative to faith, belief in the after life, belief that Iraq actually was responsible for 9/11 and things like that to prove why specticism regarding the degree of damage done is understandable, some people are just gullable.

Thats about exaggeration, not whether its actually happening or not. Show me that graph.

Click on the link for more numbers.  No, I'm not saying 75% of people think it's not happening (that would be something shocking considering there is very little in the media challenging global warming dogma), but "nobody" is quite an exaggeration in and of itself, obviously.



In Memoriam RVW Jr.

SSBB Friend Code = 5455-9050-8670 (PM me if you add so I can add you!) 

Tetris Party Friend Code = 116129046416 (ditto)

elprincipe on 27 June 2009
akuma587 said:
elprincipe said:
megaman79 said:
All i can say is goodluck because NOBODY believes the sceptics anymore. Do your research and stop making threads about propaganda that is not only ignored by many other politicians and governments but also completely irresponsible.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116590/increased-number-think-global-warming-exaggerated.aspx

The American people aren't exactly a sample of the most scientifically informed people in the world.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml

Poll: Majority Reject Evolution

51 Percent Believe God Created Humans

(CBS)  Most Americans do not accept the theory of evolution. Instead, 51 percent of Americans say God created humans in their present form, and another three in 10 say that while humans evolved, God guided the process. Just 15 percent say humans evolved, and that God was not involved.

These views are similar to what they were in November 2004 shortly after the presidential election.

VIEWS ON EVOLUTION/CREATIONISM

Now
God created humans in present form
51%
Humans evolved, God guided the process
30%
Humans evolved, God did not guide process
15%

Nov. 2004
God created humans in present form
55%
Humans evolved, God guided the process
27%
Humans evolved, God did not guide process
13%

That's nice, but has nothing to do with my response.  What I posted was in response to a comment that "nobody" believes global warming skeptics.  As you can see from Gallup's work on the subject, that is far from true.



In Memoriam RVW Jr.

SSBB Friend Code = 5455-9050-8670 (PM me if you add so I can add you!) 

Tetris Party Friend Code = 116129046416 (ditto)

elprincipe on 27 June 2009
Final-Fan said:
elprincipe said:
Final-Fan said:
elprincipe said:
akuma587 said:
TheRealMafoo said:

Glad to see that what I have been saying for years is now going mainstream.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html

I like your definition of mainstream:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Since 2007 no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. A few organisations hold non-committal positions.

It's well documented that the editor of the global warming portions of Wikipedia is a follower of global warming dogma.  Do a search on this fact if you don't believe me.  Quoting Wikipedia on anything is grounds for failure in and of itself (not to mention laughs), but especially on this issue.

Look, I agree that Wikipedia is far from a paragon of neutrality on some issues, global warming very notably among them.  But this is a simple statement of fact that IF UNTRUE ought to be easily proven so.  And if it's NOT untrue, then your complaint is irrelevant.  

Please put up or shut up.   

[edit:  I admit that "easily" may be an exaggeration.  Also, "the editor"?  As in there's only one?  I'm not sure I know what you're talking about, because what it sounds to me like you're saying makes no sense.]

It took two seconds to find this information.  I guess we really are that lazy nowadays.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/08/opinion/main4241293.shtml

Unfortunately that was completely irrelevant to the point.  That had nothing to do with the statement in question, which regards organizations not individuals.  (I've discussed that story before, and found the counterclaims massively exaggerated (of bias of the source, not bias of the editor), but fortunately there is no need to argue over that since it's completely irrelevant either way.)

There is not one editor in charge of global warming articles on Wikipedia (either de jure or de facto), whatever some idiot from NRO thinks, and the story doesn't even touch on the statement in question anyway.  

Why do you value the opinion of the politicians who wrote the IPCC report over, to take one example, the leading climate scientist at MIT?



In Memoriam RVW Jr.

SSBB Friend Code = 5455-9050-8670 (PM me if you add so I can add you!) 

Tetris Party Friend Code = 116129046416 (ditto)