Global Warming Hysteria Building

Posted:
in PoliticalOutsider edited January 2014
Less than a year after the release of Gore's propaganda film, An Inconvenient Truth, a democratic Congress is poised to pass new legislation against America's latest Hobgoblin (due to arrive in the 22nd century) 'climate change' caused by humankind.



Those who appreciate the carnival of American politics - as Mencken said "The art of running the zoo from the monkey cage", look for some exciting Senate hearings. The warming evildoers (pick your side) will be on trial, and so called "science" will be buried by polemics, biased experts, and down-right con artists.



Among the high points will be:



The Stern Review and the author, an extremist (and seriously flawed) report on the consequences of warming.



The IPCC Policy Summary, released before the supporting 'facts" are cooked to support its conclusions. The actual report is embargoed till May of 2007, so the message will be "Trust US".



It promises to be great fun as it seems the IPCC may have lost the last bit of pretense of objectivity and gone pathological...





Quote:

"Global warming is destined to have a far more destructive and earlier impact than previously estimated, the most authoritative report yet produced on climate change will warn next week.



A draft copy of the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, obtained by The Observer, shows the frequency of devastating storms - like the ones that battered Britain last week - will increase dramatically. Sea levels will rise over the century by around half a metre; snow will disappear from all but the highest mountains; deserts will spread; oceans become acidic, leading to the destruction of coral reefs and atolls; and deadly heat waves will become more prevalent.



The impact will be catastrophic, forcing hundreds of millions of people to flee their devastated homelands, particularly in tropical, low-lying areas, while creating waves of immigrants whose movements will strain the economies of even the most affluent countries.



http://www.zmag.org/content/showarti...6&ItemID=11928



«13456722

Comments

  • hardeeharharhardeeharhar Posts: 4,841member
    Your post doesn't have any content. It goes from speculation to...speculation...
  • franksargentfranksargent Posts: 4,694member
    If you can't disprove the GW science and it's primary causes, read 'em and weep!
  • haraldharald Posts: 2,152member
    Stern is not an 'extremist.' Stern is an 'economist.' There is a major difference.
  • maxparrishmaxparrish Posts: 840member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Harald View Post


    Stern is not an 'extremist.' Stern is an 'economist.' There is a major difference.



    One must not take the AGW crowd too seriously, and among the group the Stern Report by Sir Nicholas Stern has been one of the more bemusing. Greeted with sensationalist headlines upon its release, it is one of the more embarrassing works of the catastrophe crowd.
  • maxparrishmaxparrish Posts: 840member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by franksargent View Post


    If you can't disprove the GW science and it's primary causes, read 'em and weep!



    GW warming science? Something had to be proved before it can be disproved. As much of climate science is little more than speculative hysterics, and secretive practitioners of modeling divination, just how serious should it be taken?



    Of course, given the amount of hysteria one must be cautious; the herd may be spooked and in a stampede towards the cliff of bad public policy, but it is always possible their is some basis to their fears. Deniers go too far, let us say I am a skeptic of it as a significant issue to human well being.
  • shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    We've been down this road many times before...



    It's like we're playing Whack-the Mole every time one of these global warming denialists pops up. (I'm sure I stole that metaphor off someone here).



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post


    GW warming science? Something had to be proved before it can be disproved. As much of climate science is little more than speculative hysterics, and secretive practitioners of modeling divination, just how serious should it be taken?



    So the consensus among climate change experts on global warming is wrong?



    The consensus as represented in peer-reviewed journals is "biased," and you, MaxParrish, internet troglodyte, have superior knowledge?
  • frank777frank777 Posts: 5,714member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post


    We've been down this road many times before...



    That we have Shawn.



    In the late 60's, the world was going to be racked by mass starvation as we supposedly ran out of food.



    In the 70's, the earth was cooling way too fast and the impending doom was splashed across every major media, including the cover of Time magazine.



    In the 80's, we were going to nuke everybody to death.



    Now it's global warming.



    What connects all these? A mixture of feel-good activism, significant government spending increases and a fundraising bonanza for non-profits.
  • marcukmarcuk Posts: 4,442member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post


    That we have Shawn.



    In the late 60's, the world was going to be racked by mass starvation as we supposedly ran out of food.



    In the 70's, the earth was cooling way too fast and the impending doom was splashed across every major media, including the cover of Time magazine.



    In the 80's, we were going to nuke everybody to death.



    Now it's global warming.



    What connects all these? A mixture of feel-good activism, significant government spending increases and a fundraising bonanza for non-profits.



    I see, basically you give yourself away, that its not the issue thats your problem, but how you fear it will hit you in the wallet.



    I just read a scary 27 y/o book called Pole Shift by John White. Were all doomed, dooomed!



    Infact, the only scary thing about it was now I know where you creationists get all your wacky science from.



    I did learn though, that if an animal dies through asphyxiation it gets an erection. Why havn't we seen this fact in Creationist lit. Imagine all those erections during the deluge.
  • sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post


    That we have Shawn.



    In the late 60's, the world was going to be racked by mass starvation as we supposedly ran out of food.



    And that is happening as we write, with full stomachs on $2000+ computers, in our our air-conditioned homes, "The world", as you put it, is a lot more than the industrialized societies. There are hundreds of millions of people who either do not get enough to eat, or starve to death each year. Of course, thats "them", and they don't count.



    Quote:

    In the 70's, the earth was cooling way too fast and the impending doom was splashed across every major media, including the cover of Time magazine.



    Oh really? Where did Time magazine get its evidence? Look throught the climatological stats on the 70s and there was zero evidence of a cooling trend.



    Quote:

    In the 80's, we were going to nuke everybody to death



    .



    Were we? from what history has told us, the USSR were the ones who were going to nuke everyone, in order to spread their evil totalitarian doctrine across the world. The arms race of the cold war was all about furnishing defense contractors in bith sides with an almost unlimited gravy train of government welfare, furnished byb the taxpayers of both countries. neither side had any intention of "pushing the button": there was too much to lose. History bore that out to be true, as well.



    Quote:

    Now it's global warming.



    Yes. There is global warming. The ones who are doing their best to play down the evidence are those with vested interests in the industries responsible for the human factor in global warming. That is not science.



    Quote:

    What connects all these? A mixture of feel-good activism, significant government spending increases and a fundraising bonanza for non-profits.



    Anything to prevent the sealevel rising by as much as 50 feet in a matter of a few years, if the Ross Ice Shelf breaks up (for one example) will be positive. If the fat wallets of shareholders in the fossil fuel sectors get hit by international regulations, then my heart ain't going to bleed. Greed doesn't pay in the long run.



    Is humanity the only species on the planet that deliberately shits in its own living room?
  • marcukmarcuk Posts: 4,442member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post




    Is humanity the only species on the planet that deliberately shits in its own living room?



    No, I think the religious right does also.
  • frank777frank777 Posts: 5,714member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post


    And that is happening as we write, with full stomachs on $2000+ computers, in our our air-conditioned homes, "The world", as you put it, is a lot more than the industrialized societies. There are hundreds of millions of people who either do not get enough to eat, or starve to death each year. Of course, thats "them", and they don't count.



    As usual, you don't get it.



    The idea put forward was that the earth would not be able to cope with the number of people on it and mass starvation would result from the lack of resources.



    Of course, that hasn't happened. People starve to death today because of mankind own stupidity, usually revolving around war and government incompetence.



    But there is enough food to go around the world several times over.
  • frank777frank777 Posts: 5,714member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post


    Oh really? Where did Time magazine get its evidence? Look throught the climatological stats on the 70s and there was zero evidence of a cooling trend.



    Here you go.
  • @_@ artman@_@ artman Posts: 5,231member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post


    As usual, you don't get it.

    Of course, that hasn't happened. People starve to death today because of mankind own stupidity, usually revolving around war and government incompetence.



    And petroleum based fertilizers, insecticides and defoliants...you didn't get that.
  • frank777frank777 Posts: 5,714member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post


    And petroleum based fertilizers, insecticides and defoliants...you didn't get that.



    Those would fall under the stupidity part.
  • franksargentfranksargent Posts: 4,694member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post


    Here you go.



    Yeah, that one's pretty famous.



    There was a slight cooling trend at that time, and given the fact that we are in an interglacial (warm) period, some people assumed that that period was at an end, that the Earth would enter a cooling (glacial period). Of course, the cooling period takes (tens of) thousands of years to complete the peak-to-peak transition.



    That didn't happen of course, and I wonder why? GW perhaps! But that doesn't matter, we are clearly in a manmade warming trend, that will only get significantly worse if we continue at current or accelerated trends.



    The scientific evidence (and it's primary causes) is overwhelming over the longer period of record that we now have. The current rate of rise in CO2 levels and GW is unpresendented over tha last ~million years.



    Comparing that rather brief MSM attention to, what at that time WAS mere speculation (no GCM's existed at that time), to what we now know from the empirical/observational data coupled with current SOTA GSM's leaves little doubt as to what the future GW trends will be like.



    Basically that GW will continue for the forseeable future if nothing is done.



    So comparing circa 1974 knowledge to circa 2007 knowledge, is like comparing apples to oranges!
  • @_@ artman@_@ artman Posts: 5,231member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post


    Those would fall under the stupidity part.



    Psst.



    Frank777 and MaxParrish.



    Come here.



    Look.



    Read.



    The only hysterical people here are you two. The sensible ones (scientists and Gore) are the ones that have presented the facts. Action has to come quickly, but gradually. Because that will be the sensible path to the solution. Not hysteria and ignorance.



    Peace out.
  • maxparrishmaxparrish Posts: 840member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post


    Psst.



    Frank777 and MaxParrish.



    Come here.



    Look.



    Read.



    The only hysterical people here are you two. The sensible ones (scientists and Gore) are the ones that have presented the facts. Action has to come quickly, but gradually. Because that will be the sensible path to the solution. Not hysteria and ignorance.



    Peace out.



    Nonsense. If consensus means unanimity then we do not have consensuses. The author of your article, whose made a cottage industry out of beating the drum of consensus, makes several obvious mistakes.



    1) I IPCC does not represent consensus on AGW, it represents a large number of model builders, researchers, the others who are examining climate change regardless of the cause - on a both a micro and macro level. The synthesis of macro views, by those examining warming on the level of modeling, is that the cause is mostly anthropogenic None the less, their are many specialists who contribute to the report whose personal views on the MACRO causes are not represented (e.g. the TAR3's one or more hurricane specialists).



    IPCC represents the mainstream of climate science, and probably 85% of the community, but it does not represent a consensus within the community.



    2) The statements by various professional organizations are produced by majoritarian votes of the membership, not by "consensus" within the membership. For example the AMS is strongly divided on the issue, with at least half of its members as skeptics.



    3) The author quotes her own study, which is dependent on her own subjective evaluation of those scientific papers. Aside from the dubious ethics quoting one's own off the cuff "study" as evidence, I have examined some of those papers. From what I can tell is that MOST ignore the issue of AGW, and merely examine technical issues around climate measurement. The author need not have indulged in this clumsy rouge - she could have examined ONLY papers that examine the causes of global warming...till then its pretty much junk.



    4) A poll by Von Storch, of climate researchers, suggests that nearly 30% are skeptics on AGWarming...I'll see it I can find that link.



    Besides, repeated claims of consensus is the kind of defense that is hostile to science that one has to be skeptical of the motives of these "scientists".



    LINK FOUND:

    http://w3g.gkss.de/G/mitarbeiter/bra...3stats/040.HTM
  • northgatenorthgate Posts: 4,459member
    Are we supposed to take a bunch of creationists waiting for the rapture seriously about science and global warming?



    I don't think so.
  • maxparrishmaxparrish Posts: 840member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Northgate View Post


    Are we supposed to take a bunch of creationists waiting for the rapture seriously about science and global warming?



    I don't think so.



    As promised, here is a poll that suggests up to 29% of relevant scientists are skeptics:



    http://w3g.gkss.de/G/mitarbeiter/bra...3stats/040.HTM



    No, we don't need to rely on creationsits. While evolution is actually a consensus, climate science has a mainstream paradigm and a minority of skeptics who don't think we know enough to make such claims.
  • northgatenorthgate Posts: 4,459member
    Why is Global Warming such a pet peeve for right-wingers. I really don't understand why this bristles them so.



    The only remedy being suggested to combat global warming is conservation. Isn't conservation a good thing? Something we should strive for? Less reliance on fossil fuels. Less poison in our air as a result.



    Why exactly is conservation bad?
Sign In or Register to comment.