or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Global Warming Hysteria Building
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Global Warming Hysteria Building - Page 5

post #161 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

warmest january ever.

No it's not true all the thermometers are conspiring against god. I would believe it if George W. Bush would have measured it himself because he is close to god. The world is preparing for the coming of Christ. He likes it warm.
I am building a big boat.
My lobotomy didn't hurt at all.

SDW3002

And just think, in a few years what type of crops we all will be able to grow ABOVE the Artic Circle;

Coffee plants
Coco plants
Banana trees
Marijuana plants


SDW4003
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #162 of 440
NEVER EVER will I buy ANYTHING made by ExxonMobil.
MA700LL/A arrived.
---
Latitude D600, PowerEdge 1600SC, OptiPlex GX520
Reply
MA700LL/A arrived.
---
Latitude D600, PowerEdge 1600SC, OptiPlex GX520
Reply
post #163 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

And just think, in a few years what type of crops we all will be able to grow ABOVE the Artic Circle;

Coffee plants
Coco plants
Banana trees
Marijuana plants


SDW4003

Maybe we should take a look at February's temperatures. Hmmm?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #164 of 440
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

warmest january ever.

No it's not true all the thermometers are conspiring against god. I would believe it if George W. Bush would have measured it himself because he is close to god. The world is preparing for the coming of Christ. He likes it warm.
I am building a big boat.
My lobotomy didn't hurt at all.

SDW3002

These kind of claims are mostly sensationalism. World-wide instrumented records are problematic and not uniform (and note they include "sea" temperatures, not just surface reading) - increasingly uncertain the further one goes back. Moreover, the government has been "cooking the books" to erase original raw data (which showed higher temperatures in the 30's dust bowl) and replacing it with "adjusted" data - all the more suspect as original datasets have been "lost" in the process.

What is far more interesting is that yearly averages have declined slightly in the 2000's, contrary to model predictions.
post #165 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

Moreover, the government has been "cooking the books" to erase original raw data (which showed higher temperatures in the 30's dust bowl) and replacing it with "adjusted" data - all the more suspect as original datasets have been "lost" in the process.

Evidence? Thats a pretty big claim.
post #166 of 440
Sometimes I wish Al Gore would come in here and kick some butt.
post #167 of 440
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by thuh Freak View Post

Evidence? Thats a pretty big claim.

Not really that big. Climate science has been full of piltdown man hoaxes and mountebanks for many years. It's an insular community for those of modest talent and the politically engaged.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?cat=1
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1142
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1150
post #168 of 440
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

Sometimes I wish Al Gore would come in here and kick some butt.

He may be here soon if he gets kicked around by Moncton again. In a published exchange Gore got his ass whipped raw...
post #169 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

He may be here soon if he gets kicked around by Moncton again. In a published exchange Gore got his ass whipped raw...

Got any links for that "ass whipping"? Not that we should ever doubt you or anything.
post #170 of 440
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilsch View Post

Got any links for that "ass whipping"? Not that we should ever doubt you or anything.

Moncton wrote two articles for the telegraph last November, Gore replied:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...19/nclim19.xml

Note that links to the original articles are at the bottom of the page of Gore's reply.

Moncton Replies to Gore's Reply in "Gore Gored":

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061121_gore.pdf

Although both are lay people, it is clear that Gore is outclassed.
post #171 of 440
Quote:
Maybe we should take a look at February's temperatures. Hmmm?

SDW, I think I need to verse you in science a bit more. One shouldn't look at a small sample to conclude whether a phenenom is true or not. Quite the contrary, we must look at trends. A spike either way proves nothing.

It would be like me concluding global warming is infact true because it was 70º here in Boston on January 5th or so. That would be scientifically irresponsible. It's funny, I remember reading an article at townhall.com (or org? or something) proclaiming global warming to be false because it was cold one particular winter.

SDW, we need to stress to students that science isnt as clean as people think it is. There is alot of statistics, not to proclaim something true or false based on a minor unexpected occurrence.
post #172 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by MajorMatt View Post

SDW, I think I need to verse you in science a bit more. One shouldn't look at a small sample to conclude whether a phenenom is true or not. Quite the contrary, we must look at trends. A spike either way proves nothing.

It would be like me concluding global warming is infact true because it was 70º here in Boston on January 5th or so. That would be scientifically irresponsible. It's funny, I remember reading an article at townhall.com (or org? or something) proclaiming global warming to be false because it was cold one particular winter.

SDW, we need to stress to students that science isnt as clean as people think it is. There is alot of statistics, not to proclaim something true or false based on a minor unexpected occurrence.

That is quite possibly one of the most condescending posts I've seen thus far.

Of course "we must look at trends". Perhaps you should point this out when news stations are running footage of "extreme" weather conditions and pointing to this as absolute proof of global warming.

Or the more up to date term, "Climate Change." Please call and "verse them in science."

We have idiot Liberals here in the Canadian Parliament chanting daily that our Prime Minister is a "Climate Change Denier", which is apparently the new style of Nazi in our generation.

Of course, there's no proof that the climate has done anything BUT change over time. As we've gone over before, glaciers have melted and snow receded in history well before the Carbon era started.

I know I must sound like a broken record, but this is so much like the "Global Cooling" hysteria of the 70's. Government grant seeking coupled with activist groups with charitable status. A fundraising bonanza.

The biggest difference is that the Internet now exists, and I think when the hysteria subsides it will be seen to be less of a problem than was believed. A record of who said what will remain for generations to see.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #173 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

Moncton wrote two articles for the telegraph last November, Gore replied:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...19/nclim19.xml

Note that links to the original articles are at the bottom of the page of Gore's reply.

Moncton Replies to Gore's Reply in "Gore Gored":

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061121_gore.pdf

Although both are lay people, it is clear that Gore is outclassed.

Thanks for the links. I don't know where you get the "outclassed" part from. Mostly opinions. And when Monckton (not Moncton) says "we"...who is he referring to? He also quotes an American senator who IMO nitpicks quite a bit.

He (or should I say they?) accuses Gore of not telling viewers about some scientists belonging to a "political advocacy group set up to support" John Kerry? Just like the deniers of GW disclose their ties and contributions from oil companies right? Not. This is really lame Max. Come on.
post #174 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

These kind of claims are mostly sensationalism. World-wide instrumented records are problematic and not uniform (and note they include "sea" temperatures, not just surface reading) - increasingly uncertain the further one goes back. Moreover, the government has been "cooking the books" to erase original raw data (which showed higher temperatures in the 30's dust bowl) and replacing it with "adjusted" data - all the more suspect as original datasets have been "lost" in the process.

What is far more interesting is that yearly averages have declined slightly in the 2000's, contrary to model predictions.

But my lobotomy really didn't hurt. That's not sensationalism!
SDW2001b.c.
post #175 of 440
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilsch View Post

Thanks for the links. I don't know where you get the "outclassed" part from. Mostly opinions. And when Monckton (not Moncton) says "we"...who is he referring to? He also quotes an American senator who IMO nitpicks quite a bit.

He (or should I say they?) accuses Gore of not telling viewers about some scientists belonging to a "political advocacy group set up to support" John Kerry? Just like the deniers of GW disclose their ties and contributions from oil companies right? Not. This is really lame Max. Come on.

I am not sure how a conscious individual not in a state of soma could have missed Monckton's 500lb-ers dropped on the hapless Gore. Monckton's lengthly articles and cites of November 5 and November 12th was merely countered Gore's bit of snuffing dismissal, declaring to the reader that "it just ain't so, and everyone knows it"... laced with a bit of imitative aristocratic sarcasm about "Viscounts" and concluded by the invocation of theological bodies of scientific truths (the NAS panel) -
an imperious "You fail understand the word, the church of warming says...." ploy.

Monckton rightly ignored the ad hom's and Gore's own chaff launchers and homes in with his Gore Gored, hammering down Gore's avoidance with even more facts. In the end, Gore's short refutation was nothing.

Take a single point on the exchange regarding Hanson. Gore simply made an empty claim without supporting evidence. Monckton crushed it in evidence and cites. You'd have to be a tongue speaking member of Gore's church of warming to think that Gore was impressive.

And Gore's talking point understanding ot the hockey stick controversy was pretty embarrassing for a guy leading the cause on this.
post #176 of 440
MA700LL/A arrived.
---
Latitude D600, PowerEdge 1600SC, OptiPlex GX520
Reply
MA700LL/A arrived.
---
Latitude D600, PowerEdge 1600SC, OptiPlex GX520
Reply
post #177 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

I am not sure how a conscious individual not in a state of soma could have missed Monckton's 500lb-ers dropped on the hapless Gore. Monckton's lengthly articles and cites of November 5 and November 12th was merely countered Gore's bit of snuffing dismissal, declaring to the reader that "it just ain't so, and everyone knows it"... laced with a bit of imitative aristocratic sarcasm about "Viscounts" and concluded by the invocation of theological bodies of scientific truths (the NAS panel) -
an imperious "You fail understand the word, the church of warming says...." ploy.

Monckton rightly ignored the ad hom's and Gore's own chaff launchers and homes in with his Gore Gored, hammering down Gore's avoidance with even more facts. In the end, Gore's short refutation was nothing.

Take a single point on the exchange regarding Hanson. Gore simply made an empty claim without supporting evidence. Monckton crushed it in evidence and cites. You'd have to be a tongue speaking member of Gore's church of warming to think that Gore was impressive.

And Gore's talking point understanding ot the hockey stick controversy was pretty embarrassing for a guy leading the cause on this.

I don't think anyone here in these forums can take one thing you say at face value, sorry.

You have been nothing except an 100% ad hominum attack dog from the get go in this thread, and that's a fact!

All you GW Nihilists really need to put up or shut up, really. That means debate the science in the appropriate peer reviewed scientific literature. And please no bellyaching about subpar scientists. Because if they were really subpar scientsts, then you GW Nihilists should have an easy time beating up the 'tard scientsts in their own peer reviewed scientific literature. Heck all you GW Nihilists seem able to do is post blogs and cry about your view, criticize the scientists/science ad infinitum, and don't add anything substantive to the GW scientific debate. Just criticisms, like this was some kind of MSM movie review!

And there you have it, the truth about the GW Nihilists is that they want to move the objective scientific debate into the subjective political arena.

And no bellyaching about closed groups of scientists, or closed peer reviewed scientific journals, or limited access to data and methods, sorry but the GW Nihilists need to do their own science to back up their claims, no more back seat drivers allowed!

It is quite evident that you lack a basic understanding of the GW science (and perhaps the basis of the scientific method), specifically GCM's, that science isn't conducted like someone balancing their checkbook or bookkeeping (nee bean counting economists), it's the nature of the beast, get over it.

BTW, AG wrote an op-ed piece, less than three pages (typed, single spaced), His Royal Hindass wrote a thesis totaling 27 pages (and WOW, look at all of the "science" HRH did, a one node steady-state GCM, go figure)! Was this published anywhere other than the web? Guess I'll just have to counter with the 881 page IPCC 2001 report; Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis.

And in a few months time I'll post a link to the Climate Change: Bigger, Longer and Uncut (2007) report;

Quote:
The report was produced by some 600 authors from 40 countries. Over 620 expert reviewers and a large number of government reviewers also participated. Representatives from 113 governments reviewed and revised the Summary line-by-line during the course of this week before adopting it and accepting the underlying report.

Let's see if you GW Nihilists can top that one!


EDIT: Nevermind, I found the authoritative 10 page (only has text) GW Nihilist rebuttal at HRH Malcolm Wallop's Frontiers of Freedom Institute Center for Science and Public Policy; IPCC Fourth Assessment Report 2007 - Analysis and Summary.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #178 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

I am not sure how a conscious individual not in a state of soma could have missed Monckton's 500lb-ers dropped on the hapless Gore.

I wouldn't mind being in a state of soma depending on how blissful it might be. Hey, you spelled Monckton right!
Quote:
Take a single point on the exchange regarding Hanson. Gore simply made an empty claim without supporting evidence. Monckton crushed it in evidence and cites. You'd have to be a tongue speaking member of Gore's church of warming to think that Gore was impressive.

"Gore's church of warming". That's rich. You accuse others of "hysteria"....

Stop acting like you're a climate expert. If Monckton, who you seem to really...uh, "like", is a lay man, what does that make you? Parroting talking points won't change anything. It actually devalues the decent points that you might be making. It also makes it seem that denying GW is more of an enterprise than a scientific endeavour. You might want to consider changing the name of the thread because the only hysteria I see seems to be coming from you and 1 or 2 others from your side of the fence.
post #179 of 440
Thread Starter 
Several messages ago FrankS said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent

I stand by my previous comments.
That is all.

And now it is you again? I am shocked, can't you keep your word? How disappointing. Should we trust anything you say?

Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

I don't think anyone here in these forums can take one thing you say at face value, sorry....You have been nothing except an 100% ad hominum attack dog from the get go in this thread, and that's a fact!...That is why they cannot be trusted.

Surely in the span of several days you NOT have not forgotten the copious explanations, evidence, and links I provided? You seemed like such an attentive student for a brief moment...oh well - go to the start and read it all again. Then I will be more than happy to accept your apology for a spurious claim of 100% ad hom.

Quote:
All you GW Nihilists really need to put up or shut up, really. That means debate the science in the appropriate peer reviewed scientific literature. And please no bellyaching about subpar scientists. Because if they were really subpar scientsts, then you GW Nihilists should have an easy time beating up the 'tard scientsts in their own peer reviewed scientific literature. Heck all you GW Nihilists seem able to do is post blogs and cry about your view, criticize the scientists/science ad infinitum, and don't add anything substantive to the GW scientific debate. Just criticisms, like this was some kind of MSM movie review!

Poppycock. Have we not been over this before? The global warming hysterics community wishes to prove that something un-natural and man made is occurring and that it is alarming. But the critics have pointed out the weaknesses in those claims - meaning there is no way to know if such warming is natural or unnatural or alarming or not. The key objection is NOT that we know it to be NATURAL warming - such a peer study would also be equally spurious. The key is that NO theory with our current data and methods is robust enough to make any long-term claim about climate change.

If a critic has an alternate climate theory, then he/she can publish it. However, most critics merely note the unwarranted methods of current claims - something that can only be exhaustively studied when those making these claims publish their methods and data - which they refuse to do... curious, eh?

In short: the rejection of one paradigm as a robust model IS NOT dependent on having it replaced by an alternative paradigm. ..an equally valid claim is that we just don't know.

Quote:
And there you have it, the truth about the GW Nihilists is that they want to move the objective scientific debate into the subjective political arena.

Horsepoo, unless you think scientific candor is "poltics"?

There is conclusive answer to all of these GW claims - prove it by giving us FULL DISCLOSURE of your product. A lack of disclosure is the enemy of science and the hide-y hole of frauds, con men, grifters, hoaxers, scammers, mountebanks, and late night Ron Poppeil rotisserie sales. Wait, maybe I am unfair, investment in the development of a Ron Popeil tomato slicer requires full disclosure by the SEC - perhaps climate science could meet these standards for honesty, what da ya think?...LOL.

Quote:
And no bellyaching about closed groups of scientists, or closed peer reviewed scientific journals, or limited access to data and methods, sorry but the GW Nihilists need to do their own science to back up their claims, no more back seat drivers allowed!

Let me see, so this is your benighted view of science:

'Yep, I don't want to hear of any criticisms of a small group of insular hockey team "scientists", a crippled peer review process, or about their hiding data and methods...even though it s true. Rather I want you to TRUST them, BELIEVE in them, AND NOT REQUEST examination of their data and methods - I then want you to prove their methods are flawed without knowing what they exactly did or what data they used'`

Really FS, that you can shamelessly advocate this as science says more about your values than this particular controversy. It's amusing but also sad.

Quote:
It is quite evident that you lack a basic understanding of the GW science (and perhaps the basis of the scientific method), specifically GCM's,

It its the method that hides data then you are right, that scientific method is unknown to me, as well as most honest scientists

Quote:
BTW, AG wrote an op-ed piece, less than three pages (typed, single spaced), His Royal Hindass wrote a thesis totaling 27 pages (and WOW, look at all of the "science" HRH did, a one node steady-state GCM, go figure)! Was this published anywhere other than the web?

Your lost again? - obviously you did not read Al Gore's article. The the articles and where they were published is self-evident AND pointed out in my prior post on the subject.

Quote:
Guess I'll just have to counter with the 881 page IPCC 2001 report; Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis.

And in a few months time I'll post a link to the Climate Change: Bigger, Longer and Uncut (2007) report; Let's see if you GW Nihilists can top that one!

Sorry, wrong accusation...throw mud all you want, but at least get it right. I happen to believe that there is some warming caused by human's, just not that it is catastrophic or alarming. You hysterics have to learn the phonetical and dictionary difference between skepticism and nihilism...although once in the church of warming and speaking tonuges I am sure it becomes a bit difficult to come down from the rapture, no?
post #180 of 440
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilsch View Post

I wouldn't mind being in a state of soma depending on how blissful it might be. Hey, you spelled Monckton right!
"Gore's church of warming". That's rich. You accuse others of "hysteria"....

Stop acting like you're a climate expert. If Monckton, who you seem to really...uh, "like", is a lay man, what does that make you? Parroting talking points won't change anything. It actually devalues the decent points that you might be making. It also makes it seem that denying GW is more of an enterprise than a scientific endeavour. You might want to consider changing the name of the thread because the only hysteria I see seems to be coming from you and 1 or 2 others from your side of the fence.

I'm sorry, was there something substantive in your comments?
post #181 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

I'm sorry

Well, you should be. Get the new talking points yet?
post #182 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

I'm full of bullshit!

T,FTFY
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #183 of 440
Relax. Take a deep (cough) breath and take in this 40 minute video intermission...The Denial Machine

"In the past few years, a hurricane has engulfed the debate about global warming. This scientific issue has become a rhetorical firestorm ... all » with science pitted against spin and inflammatory words on both sides.

This documentary shows how fossil fuel corporations have kept the global warming debate alive long after most scientists believed that global warming was real and had potentially catastrophic consequences. It shows that companies such as Exxon Mobil are working with top public relations firms and using many of the same tactics and personnel as those employed by Phillip Morris and RJ Reynolds to dispute the cigarette-cancer link in the 1990s. Exxon Mobil sought out those willing to question the science behind climate change, providing funding for some of them, their organizations and their studies."

Surprise, surprise. Proof that the same PR firm and "scientists" that were paid off to dispute cigarettes = cancer are now being bought and sold to the public with their Global Warming = Global Climate Change bullshit.

If anything politics have to be removed from this debate. Science and real scientists should be in the forefront.
post #184 of 440
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 100mph View Post

The Denial Machine

I'm going to take off the "partisan" hat, and give you a brief and dispassionate impression of your Canadian documentary's first five minutes. After skimming through it I found it made many errors - so much so we don't have time to detail all them. HOWEVER just the first five minutes is a very good example of what is wrong with contrived MSM Canadian propaganda - just reviewing the opening five minutes is enough to make it a dubious source of objective information.

Here are some quotes (best as I could transcribe):

"This Could be most important argument ever."
"This is less about science than spin"
"It is ideas against ideology - fighting words on both sides"
"How did it happen, how did this crucial situation which many believe could determine the very future of the planet become a partisan battleground?
"After all, global warming is widely accepted by scientists world wide".
"Long term costs could be as great as two world wars and the depression added together".

It then says, this is a story of how it became partisan: "the corporations and small group of scientists."

So why do I doubt it?

1) From the gitgo it commits the fallacy of an "argument from consequences" in order to posit an unproven assumption - i.e. because it could be the most important argument ever, we must assume it is. Well, it could also be the least important argument ever...or something in between. That has to be proven independent of "what could be".

2) it then says that the climate change debate is less about science than spin. This is false generalization that "spins" a complex subject with diverse opinions into just two false dichotomies - science ideas vs. spin ideology. Quite beyond global warming there are debates about actual climate change effects, its net economic impacts, its mitigation costs, etc.

3) it then flirts with the most basic of logical fallacies... that if "if it could be the most important argument" it must be "a crucial situation". This is also a form of begging the question (if it could be important, so it must be crucial, and if it is crucial, it must be important).

4) then once more, it makes a hasty and misleading generalization regarding scientific belief. It is true that human caused global warming is accepted by the strong majority of climatologists, by not quite as many solar physicists, and by only one half of the meteorological community. It seems about 28% of the climate specialist community express some skepticism of primary human causation from somewhat to strong. (survey Von Storch 2003).

5) it quoted the warnings of the Stern report (although unidentified) to hype the argument from fear. What the documentary did not tell you is that this report has been excoriated by most of the environmental economists (e.g. Nordhaus, Tol, Mendelssohn). Another argument from fear with a dubious and unattributed scientific source.

7) it's premise does not follow from its assumptions. The documentary shows a number of political and scientific voices arguing in clips (e.g. John Stossel's comment on the anti-capitalist mentality of environmentalists) AND says ideology vs. science is involved THEN it moves on to explains the reasons for the partisan debate: big oil and it's hired scientists "reaching into the Bush administration".

I am sure that John Stossel knows, as well as I do, what the difference is between ideological motivations and economic ones. The documentary makes an assertion but does not back it up (except by innuendo)...basically avoiding the ideological questions in liue of the old "sinister forces motivated by money" hype.

So after five minutes full of so many half truths, logical errors, unsupported assumptions, and a stereotypical ignorance of the world of opinion and ideology why work your way a fairy tale shaped to meet the ideological spin of one group of partisans?

Thanks for the link though - it confirms what is wrong with the climate science debate.
post #185 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

I'm going to take off the "partisan" hat, and give you a brief and dispassionate impression of your Canadian documentary's first five minutes. After skimming thorugh it I found it made many errors - so much so we don't have time to detail all them. HOWEVER just the first five minutes is a very good example of what is wrong with contrived MSM Canadian propaganda - just reviewing the opening five minutes is enough to make it a dubious source of objective information.

Here are some quotes (best as I could transcribe):

"This Could be most important argument ever."
"This is less about science than spin"
"It is ideas against ideology - fighting words on both sides"
"How did it happen, how did this crucial situation which many believe could determine the very future of the planet become a partisan battleground?
"After all, global warming is widely accepted by scientists world wide".
"Long term costs could be as great as two world wars and the depression added together".

It then says, this is a story of how it became partisan: "the corporations and small group of scientists."

So why do I doubt it?

1) From the gitgo it commits the fallacy of an "argument from consequences" in order to posit an unproven assumption - i.e. because it could be the most important argument ever, we must assume it is. Well, it could also be the least important argument ever...or something in between. That has to be proven independent of "what could be".

2) it then says that the climate change debate is less about science than spin. This is false generalization that "spins" a complex subject with diverse opinions into just two false dichotomies - science ideas vs. spin ideology. Quite beyond global warming there are debates about actual climate change effects, its net economic impacts, its mitigation costs, etc.

3) it then flirts with the most basic of logical fallacies... that if "if it could be the most important argument" it must be "a crucial situation". This is also a form of begging the question (if it could be important, so it must be crucial, and if it is crucial, it must be important).

4) then once more, it makes a hasty and misleading generalization regarding scientific belief. It is true that human caused global warming is accepted by the strong majority of climatologists, by not quite as many solar physicists, and by only one half of the meteorological community. It seems about 28% of the climate specialist community express some skepticism of primary human causation from somewhat to strong. (survey Von Storch 2003).

5) it quoted the warnings of the Stern report (although unidentified) to hype the argument from fear. What the documentary did not tell you is that this report has been excoriated by most of the environmental economists (e.g. Nordhaus, Tol, Mendelssohn). Another argument from fear with a dubious and unattributed scientific source.

7) it's premise does not follow from its assumptions. The documentary shows a number of political and scientific voices arguing in clips (e.g. John Stossel's comment on the anti-capitalist mentality of environmentalists) AND says ideology vs. science is involved THEN it moves on to explains the reasons for the partisan debate: big oil and it's hired scientists "reaching into the Bush administration".

I am sure that John Stossel knows, as well as I do, what the difference is between ideological motivations and economic ones. The documentary makes an assertion but does not back it up (except by innuendo)...basically avoiding the ideological questions in liue of the old "sinster forces" hype.

So after five minutes, why bother? It's a fairy tale shaped to meet the ideological spin of one group of partisans.

Thanks for the link - it confrims what is wrong with climate science.

The Denial Machine isn't ment for viewing by GW Nihilists.

The Denial Machine is ment for those seeking the TRUTH!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #186 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

The Denial Machine isn't ment for viewing by GW Nihilists.

The Denial Machine is ment for those seeking the TRUTH!

Hopefully, sooner or later those Truth Seekers will go to school and learn to spell words like "meant".

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #187 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

I'm going to take off the "partisan" hat, and give you a brief and dispassionate impression of your Canadian documentary's first five minutes. ..... blah, blah, blah

"Thanks for smoking" (2005) ... rent it, watch it.

Didn't I tell you that dinosaurs are destined for extinction (?) Or was it someone else ...

Nowadays, information wars are typically lost by forces spreading BS. Even in US (rimes with BS ... coincidence), in-spite of general public isolation (how are you? have a good weekend), the situation is gradually improving.
MA700LL/A arrived.
---
Latitude D600, PowerEdge 1600SC, OptiPlex GX520
Reply
MA700LL/A arrived.
---
Latitude D600, PowerEdge 1600SC, OptiPlex GX520
Reply
post #188 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Hopefully, sooner or later those Truth Seekers will go to school and learn to spell words like "meant".


What can I say but, "I are a engineer."

But IMHO compared to what I write, another individual in this thread (who shall rename nameless), writes in such an incoherent fashion, as to make most of what they are trying to say rather meaningless.

It's to the point that their disinformation/derogatory/dismissive/disenginious dialog is in fact quite entertaining, in the rant/screed format of delivery.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #189 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by 100mph View Post

"Thanks for smoking" (2005) ... rent it, watch it.

Didn't I tell you that dinosaurs are destined for extinction (?) Or was it someone else ...

Nowadays, information wars are typically lost by forces spreading BS. Even in US (rimes with BS ... coincidence), in-spite of general public isolation (how are you? have a good weekend), the situation is gradually improving.

The Century of Self

Something to curl up and watch on the weekend too.

Oh. I rented "Thanks for Smoking" too. Going to watch that tomorrow.
post #190 of 440
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

The Century of Self

Something to curl up and watch on the weekend too.

Oh. I rented "Thanks for Smoking" too. Going to watch that tomorrow.

My God, is there a bottomless pit of these kind of coo-coo documentaries? I skimmed this four part mish-mash of pop history, pop sociology, pop politics, pop economics and pop Freudism and was genuinely unimpressed - so much work and labor to produce a groping and tenuous string of ideas - barely with any connectives between them

The only interesting part was the last one, with Dick Morris and the change in politics. While Morris was not doing anything different in theory, his attention to detail and political identity over the mundane "tidbits" was very perceptive; e.g. the new Democratic Congress focusing on "tuition tax credits" in the first 100 days, a 'nothing' as far as policy BUT one of the little bites.

Still, it gives me a sense of you'alls worldview - one of sinister corporations, manipulation, a lack of real empowerment, false or invalid irrational desires among your fellow citizens, the assumption of the irrational individual, and the promise of rational "wisdom" in collective decision making (i.e. politics).

No?
post #191 of 440
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

What can I say but, "I are a engineer."

But IMHO compared to what I write, another individual in this thread (who shall rename nameless), writes in such an incoherent fashion, as to make most of what they are trying to say rather meaningless.

It's to the point that their disinformation/derogatory/dismissive/disenginious dialog is in fact quite entertaining, in the rant/screed format of delivery.

I think frank 'the engineer' is trying to be clever - let's be supportive fellas.
post #192 of 440
All this talk about "Thank You for Smoking" and now I gotta go see it again. It was so great.
post #193 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

so much work and labor to produce a groping and tenuous string of ideas - barely with any connectives between them

Sounds like the posts made by some of the more long-winded people here on AI.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #194 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

I think frank 'the engineer' is trying to be clever - let's be supportive fellas.

Actually my official job title is "Research Hydraulic Engineer" but seeing as I'm currently doing reinforced concrete slab and steel ramp designs, I much prefer just "engineer" TYVM.

[center][/CENTER]
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #195 of 440
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Sounds like the posts made by some of the more long-winded people here on AI.

Now I know why I feel like the supervisor of a day outing for the tittering residents of the mentally challenged home - "now now people, back into van - you need to get home before dark."
post #196 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

Now I know why I feel like the supervisor of a day outing for the tittering residents of the mentally challenged home - "now now people, back into van - you need to get home before dark."

[CENTER][/CENTER]
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #197 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

The Century of Self


Thank you!

Trying to superimpose this on 'The Power of Nightmares' ...
MA700LL/A arrived.
---
Latitude D600, PowerEdge 1600SC, OptiPlex GX520
Reply
MA700LL/A arrived.
---
Latitude D600, PowerEdge 1600SC, OptiPlex GX520
Reply
post #198 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

My God ...

I am sorry your parents didn't tell you about it. But I think it's time for you to know...
There is no God ... no Santa and no Tooth Ferry.
MA700LL/A arrived.
---
Latitude D600, PowerEdge 1600SC, OptiPlex GX520
Reply
MA700LL/A arrived.
---
Latitude D600, PowerEdge 1600SC, OptiPlex GX520
Reply
post #199 of 440
Al Gore's movie won an Oscar for Best Documentary.
post #200 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

Al Gore's movie won an Oscar for Best Documentary.

" ...

How much bloody electricity can one man use, for God's sake? He may have invented the Internet, but it now looks as if he's running the whole thing from his house.

... "



http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=37905


Just 2 funny ...
MA700LL/A arrived.
---
Latitude D600, PowerEdge 1600SC, OptiPlex GX520
Reply
MA700LL/A arrived.
---
Latitude D600, PowerEdge 1600SC, OptiPlex GX520
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Global Warming Hysteria Building