or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Junk Science, (sponsored by) The British Government
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Junk Science, (sponsored by) The British Government - Page 2

post #41 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Everything would be alright if only we all went round to Hassan's to listen to some experimental jazz..

Yeah1
post #42 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah View Post

Yeah1

Hey, I'm still mad at you for standing me up at the BL!
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #43 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

So in other words, there is a 75% chance that prediction is flat wrong.

So, it's "junk science" because the predicted chance isn't high enough to pass the SDW2001 "worth mentioning" test?

If I'm tossing a die, and I predict that there's a 1/6 chance of the die showing a 3 when it lands, is that "junk science" too?
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #44 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

So, it's "junk science" because the predicted chance isn't high enough to pass the SDW2001 "worth mentioning" test?

If I'm tossing a die, and I predict that there's a 1/6 chance of the die showing a 3 when it lands, is that "junk science" too?

How about when you roll the die and say that if it lands on a three there will be 4000 more deaths do to Malaria in 2025? Would that be junk science?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #45 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

How about when you roll the die and say that if it lands on a three there will be 4000 more deaths do to Malaria in 2025? Would that be junk science?

Yes, because there's no research to support the possibility.
post #46 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Yes, because there's no research to support the possibility.

So we have verified proof of our ability to predict the weather in the future and the number of human deaths attributed to it?

Oil companies have nothing to do with this, global warming deniers have nothing to do with that. We are talking about the ability predict how many people will be claimed to die in the future oh and BTW, they can't apparently forestall any of this with their own actions.

You know because people could never buy a window air conditioner in the next 10 years or become educated about the signs of heat stroke or anything like that. They just have to die.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #47 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

So we have verified proof of our ability to predict the weather....

Who's talking about the weather? I thought this was a discussion about climate.

Ooh! Ooh! Watch this. I'll predict the weather in Vicksburg in August:

It's going to be hot.

See? I predicted the weather six months out!
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #48 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

So we have verified proof of our ability to predict the weather in the future and the number of human deaths attributed to it?

Oil companies have nothing to do with this, global warming deniers have nothing to do with that. We are talking about the ability predict how many people will be claimed to die in the future oh and BTW, they can't apparently forestall any of this with their own actions.

You know because people could never buy a window air conditioner in the next 10 years or become educated about the signs of heat stroke or anything like that. They just have to die.

OK. So we can cancel all military spending according to your "logic". Great way to save a lot of money from the national budget. I'd even support tax cuts if we did it.
post #49 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

OK. So we can cancel all military spending according to your "logic". Great way to save a lot of money from the national budget. I'd even support tax cuts if we did it.

No, no, no... you see, when it's a military threat, even the slightest theoretical possibility based on hearsay and rampant speculation that someone might attack somewhere, someday, someway, is worth spending billions of dollars to prevent, not to mention sacrificing privacy and convenience and a bit of your civil liberties for.

Risks associated with mere climate change, however, aren't worth the tiniest expenditure or slightest inconvenience until they're proven 99.9% certain by the absolutely most impeccable science and math to which not even the slight speck of dissent can be found, even among highly paid non-scientific spokespersons for the oil industry.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #50 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

So we have verified proof of our ability to predict the weather in the future and the number of human deaths attributed to it?

Oil companies have nothing to do with this, global warming deniers have nothing to do with that. We are talking about the ability predict how many people will be claimed to die in the future oh and BTW, they can't apparently forestall any of this with their own actions.

You know because people could never buy a window air conditioner in the next 10 years or become educated about the signs of heat stroke or anything like that. They just have to die.

I think so.

Anyway, I've given the updated and original reports a very quick read (i. e. I only focused on the heat and cold related mortality sections (Chapter 4 of the original and Chapter 6 of the revised reports)).

From the new report (p. 88);

Quote:
The increasing tolerance to heat probably resulted as much from lifestyle changes, such as greater readiness to wear informal clothing and less need for physical exertion, as from physiological adaptation to heat stress, which is relatively short term. However, we estimate that the increasingly variable as well as higher summer temperatures will create, by 2012, a 1 in 40 risk every year (a 1 in 4 risk in the decade centred on 2012) of a 9-day heatwave at 27
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 #51 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Who's talking ...? I thought ......

Ooh! Ooh! Watch this. I'll predict .....:

It's going to be hot.

See? I predicted.....!

I don't really think you are supposed to cut my statements in half and claim it wrong based on that. I've done that to yours and amazingl enough it goes to hell as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

OK. So we can cancel all military spending according to your "logic". Great way to save a lot of money from the national budget. I'd even support tax cuts if we did it.

I've called the insanity department to report you. I think logical leaps that big need a license.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

Risks associated with mere climate change, however, aren't worth the tiniest expenditure or slightest inconvenience until they're proven 99.9% certain by the absolutely most impeccable science and math to which not even the slight speck of dissent can be found, even among highly paid non-scientific spokespersons for the oil industry.

So let the global warming deniers refuse the tiny expenditure of buying a window air conditioner and you won't have to worry about them anymore when they die. Problem solved! That is why this even about global warming or climate change. It is about claiming humans would act exactly the same with a very isolated heat was as they would with it now being annually. Also I think while many people might argue about expenditures and inconveniences, I don't think buying a fan, a window shade or a water spray bottle are the types of tiny expenditures or inconveniences people will be arguing about or forgoing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

I think so.

Anyway, I've given the updated and original reports a very quick read (i. e. I only focused on the heat and cold related mortality sections (Chapter 4 of the original and Chapter 6 of the revised reports)).

I think not because the paragraph right before what you quoted stated the following...

Increasing tolerance to heat has so far prevented rising temperature from increasing mean
heat-related mortality, even in South-East England where summer temperatures have
risen 1.4C since 1971.


In otherwords... using our predictive formula.. more death should have occurred but didn't because people undertook different actions... you know the ones you outlined in your paragraph.. .they changed their clothes for example.

Quote:
So the original report clearly shows an expectation of lower overall temperature related deaths due to temperature extremes (both warmer then baseline heat related extremes and milder than baseline cold related extremes).

In other words, a warmer British climate will result in less temperature related deaths on an annual basis (milder cold periods more than offset hotter warm periods).

The Reuters newsfeed only reports on the possible heat related deaths, IMHO it's not balanced reporting.

It is also not balanced or reasonable action because you can now pay a sizable carbon tax to drive into downtown London to prevent those fewer people from dying.

Also it is fun to note the actions on page 89 which amount to...

/stuffy English advice voice

Yes... um.... tell the newspapers and folks on the television to ask people to turn on a fan and also perhaps apply some water to themselves. Also perhaps they could pull the shades or curtains closed.

Also tell them not to purchase air conditioning because while that would save them, we believe it would kill the planet. Good day.

/off stuffy English advice voice

Thank goodness we have government reports to recommend these actions. Clearly if this type of heat became common instead of rare, no one would ever think of turning on a fan, applying water to themselves or of drawing the shades down. I look forward to the updated 2012 version which I'm sure will the increased readiness to draw a shade or turn on a fan as a heat adaptation that has "has so far prevented rising temperature from increasing mean heat-related mortality."

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #52 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post



I think not because the paragraph right before what you quoted stated the following...

Increasing tolerance to heat has so far prevented rising temperature from increasing mean
heat-related mortality, even in South-East England where summer temperatures have
risen 1.4C since 1971.


In otherwords... using our predictive formula.. more death should have occurred but didn't because people undertook different actions... you know the ones you outlined in your paragraph.. .they changed their clothes for example.



It is also not balanced or reasonable action because you can now pay a sizable carbon tax to drive into downtown London to prevent those fewer people from dying.

Also it is fun to note the actions on page 89 which amount to...

/stuffy English advice voice

Yes... um.... tell the newspapers and folks on the television to ask people to turn on a fan and also perhaps apply some water to themselves. Also perhaps they could pull the shades or curtains closed.

Also tell them not to purchase air conditioning because while that would save them, we believe it would kill the planet. Good day.

/off stuffy English advice voice

Thank goodness we have government reports to recommend these actions. Clearly if this type of heat became common instead of rare, no one would ever think of turning on a fan, applying water to themselves or of drawing the shades down. I look forward to the updated 2012 version which I'm sure will the increased readiness to draw a shade or turn on a fan as a heat adaptation that has "has so far prevented rising temperature from increasing mean heat-related mortality."

Basic thermodynamics tells me that if I open my refrigerator (or freezer) door, I'll obtain a short term cooling effect, but that long term, the temperature of my apartment will eventually be greater, then it was before I opened the refrigerator (or freezer) door.

As to your "kill the planet" it's a red herring, or rhetorical, or hyperbole, nothing more and nothing less. \
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 #53 of 62
Wow... he missed the point about the military entirely. Even after Shetline made it unmissable. What a... the words escape me.

According to Nick:

Global warming deniers: Intelligent, thoughtful!
Terrorist threat deniers: "Call the insanity department!" (a little overdramatic, you think?)

post #54 of 62
Here... I'll help you out...

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman's logic View Post

So we have verified proof of our ability to predict foreign threats in the future and the number of human deaths attributed to it?

Defense contractors have nothing to do with this, anti-war protesters have nothing to do with that. We are talking about the ability predict how many people will be claimed to die in the future oh and BTW, they can't apparently forestall any of this with their own actions.

You know because people could never promote tolerance and fair trade in the next 10 years or become educated about the signs of fundamentalist discourse or anything like that. They just have to die.

Junk Science vs. Junk Intelligence.

Please tell me why that analogy isn't a valid one.

And don't tell me it's because the scientists are predicting numbers and probabilities. Do you seriously think intelligence claims don't cite numbers?
post #55 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Basic thermodynamics tells me that if I open my refrigerator (or freezer) door, I'll obtain a short term cooling effect, but that long term, the temperature of my apartment will eventually be greater, then it was before I opened the refrigerator (or freezer) door.

As to your "kill the planet" it's a red herring, or rhetorical, or hyperbole, nothing more and nothing less. \

This is understandable as the coils for your refrigerator are still within the apartment. If you use an air conditioner it must deposit the heat outside of your apartment to work effectively. If everyone ran their air conditioners it might make the surrounding air temperature outside say 103 versus 102 degrees. However in their apartments it would be a comfortable 75 degrees which would stop them from dying much like it stops your food from rotting.

Also the planet killing thing is actually within the actions. It is completely clear that air conditioning can offset the affects of a heatwave on an elderly person who is more susceptible to heat. They do no however recommend air conditioning due to their desire to fight global warming rather than save more lives.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Wow... he missed the point about the military entirely. Even after Shetline made it unmissable. What a... the words escape me.

According to Nick:

Global warming deniers: Intelligent, thoughtful!
Terrorist threat deniers: "Call the insanity department!" (a little overdramatic, you think?)


No everyone gets your little strawman and how for the last three or four posts you would desperately rather discuss how we have a military rather than say...oh... the thread topic. However being unwilling to fall into such a thing isn't missing the point, rather it is actually addressing it and ignoring how you attempt to drag it off point. We get it even more when you intentionally misquote me and create some little caricature you prefer to argue against.

Now please get back to discussing the topic and not how valid or invalid your strawman analogy is or is not.

Do you believe people will just do nothing when instead of one heatwave every decade or so, they now come several times a decade and thus become the norm? Will they instead alter their wardrobe, purchase more fans, buy air conditioners, etc. or will they just up and die thus giving the numbers the report predicts?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #56 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

This is understandable as the coils for your refrigerator are still within the apartment. If you use an air conditioner it must deposit the heat outside of your apartment to work effectively. If everyone ran their air conditioners it might make the surrounding air temperature outside say 103 versus 102 degrees. However in their apartments it would be a comfortable 75 degrees which would stop them from dying much like it stops your food from rotting.

Also the planet killing thing is actually within the actions. It is completely clear that air conditioning can offset the affects of a heatwave on an elderly person who is more susceptible to heat. They do no however recommend air conditioning due to their desire to fight global warming rather than save more lives.



No everyone gets your little strawman and how for the last three or four posts you would desperately rather discuss how we have a military rather than say...oh... the thread topic. However being unwilling to fall into such a thing isn't missing the point, rather it is actually addressing it and ignoring how you attempt to drag it off point. We get it even more when you intentionally misquote me and create some little caricature you prefer to argue against.

Now please get back to discussing the topic and not how valid or invalid your strawman analogy is or is not.

Do you believe people will just do nothing when instead of one heatwave every decade or so, they now come several times a decade and thus become the norm? Will they instead alter their wardrobe, purchase more fans, buy air conditioners, etc. or will they just up and die thus giving the numbers the report predicts?

Lots of people will buy air conditioners. Others might die. Isn't it better to reduce emissions as much as we can so that people don't have to buy something to fix the situation?
post #57 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

This is understandable as the coils for your refrigerator are still within the apartment. If you use an air conditioner it must deposit the heat outside of your apartment to work effectively. If everyone ran their air conditioners it might make the surrounding air temperature outside say 103 versus 102 degrees. However in their apartments it would be a comfortable 75 degrees which would stop them from dying much like it stops your food from rotting.

Also the planet killing thing is actually within the actions. It is completely clear that air conditioning can offset the affects of a heatwave on an elderly person who is more susceptible to heat. They do no however recommend air conditioning due to their desire to fight global warming rather than save more lives.

Actually the refrigerator (or freezer) was a metaphor for the long term effects of increased GHG emissions, although I understand how you could have misread my intent, as I myself pondered it's misinterpretation after I wrote it.

The way I read the British health report is that the less cold environment saves more lives than the intermittent heat waves, as I showed in my previous post. That a MSM news source only highlights the negative effects and not the net positive effects (less deaths overall) is disingenuous and misleading.

Of course, we're only talking about one rather small country in a temperate climate to begin with, not the net effects globally.

Also, I don't have a problem with those that would be most affected by the heat waves (e. g. at highest risk of dying) using AC.

As to the Planet Death scenario, no it is not within the realm of possible outcomes, since life began on Earth, a 100% extinction event has never occurred, what proof can you put forward that AGW will be the unique difference that causes a 100% extinction event? Like I've already stated, your position of argumentation on this point is 100% hyperbole. \
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 #58 of 62
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

The severe heatwave in Europe in summer 2003 caused the following number of deaths:
France: >14,000, Germany >7,000, UK: >2,000.. for a total of >35,000 excess deaths in a very short period of time, ie some 2 weeks.
A December 2004 article in Nature, which you probably regard as leftwing propaganda, mentioned that "climate change" was a contributing factor.



The probability of an even more severe hot spell in the UK, causing many thousands of deaths in SE England (the most likely affected area, and the most densely populated region of the British Isles, is a real one. For the UK Government to fund such a study is hardly junk science, especially considering that such an event occurred just 3 and a half years ago. (Sure, that event "only" caused 2000 deaths in the UK, but hey, they were mostly poor or older people who couldn't afford air conditioning, so they didn't really count for much, perhaps?).

Prove to some reasonable measure of certainty that the heat wave was caused by "global warming." Yes, I know...PEOPLE DIED! Unfortunate, yes. Does it mean it has anything to do with climate change? No.

It appears that (some) rightwingers are uncomfortable with the notion of human causes of climate change/global warming because to combat this, we might need to act as a global community, and some individual freedoms (such as the divine right to glug gasoline in our glorious V8 engines ad infinitum) might have to be compromised. Oh the pain! My liberal heart, it bleedeth so. Pinning the "irresponsibility" tag firmly on the shoulder of unrestrained jungle law capitalism is such a contentious notion for rightwingers that its not just enough to attack the messenger, as is customary, but also the message itself. Such is the war on science.[/quote]

1. It's not just "rightwingers" that are uncomfortable.

2. Yes, many of us do not want to surrender freedoms. Why? Two reasons. First, the "problem" may not even be a problem at all (you know, since the Earth hasn't warmed since, say, 1998?). Secondly, if the Earth is warming, there is debate about what's causing it. Let me say that again: There is debate. So yes, before we run around banning SUVs and consumption/use of livestock, some of us would like to slow down and think. Imagine that.

3. You don't seem to mind placing the burden on the US capitalist system, while you also don't mind ignoring nations such as China, Russia, et al.

4. Of course we're waging a "war on science" based on our own selfish and narrow motives, while believers Teh Global Warming™ have nothing but the purest of motivations! Of course. There can be no principled opposition to the alarmist view of the situation. There can only be misinformed, intellectually dishonest capitalist pigs! I mean, it's not like the Left uses Teh Global Warming™ as their uber-issue, right? It's not like it's an excuse to support each and every liberal cause out there, from Veganism to Socialism to Pacifism. Thou art as pure as the first unblemished snow!

Quote:

Perhaps its not important to undertake studies, SDW, because Muslims couldn't be blamed for those 35,000 dead folk?

You prefer that we unite in the war on science?

Those two sentences aren't even worthy of a response.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex London View Post

Spot on Sammi,I agree with your analysis completely; and I love your " War on Science" Scarily true. I remember that summer and the shocking number of deaths across Europe, but as you say, hey, they were poor and old.

Yeah, because those who don't believe it was caused by Teh Global Warming™ clearly don't give a flying fuck about the people that died. That must be it. Excellent analysis.

Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

I agree with SDW10000BC. If summer here in Utah suddenly became an extended experience of 105º+ weather and winters either were more like this unending nightmare of snow or were, say, much warmer and featured no snow, I wouldn't worry. Nothing would really change. We don't need those lakes and stuff, anyway. And those friggin' Meeses can all die of thirst, for all I care. They keep interrupting our Christmas parades like some scene in Northern Exposure. Lazy Meeses oughta find their own damned food.

Ignoring for a moment that the above is not my position, let's boil it down to the only important word in your post:

Quote:
If....

In other words, there is no good reason to think it will occur.


Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Oh, come now! Everyone knows it's only going to get hotter! It's even in the name, fer Christ's sake! Global Warming. Not Global Wildandunpredictableshangesinclimateandseverityofi nclementweather.

Please explain how Teh Global Warming™ has caused severe weather changes. Really, I'm waiting.
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 #59 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Please explain how Teh Global Warming™ has caused severe weather changes. Really, I'm waiting.

No, because you'd just call into question what is a fact or what is "evidence" or what is "science" or what is "consensus" or what is "true" like the postmodernist lefty that you've become.

Frankly, I'm pretty convinced that the only reason the right-wingers give a shit about this issue is because they just like to piss off the lefties.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #60 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Please explain how Teh Global Warming has caused severe weather changes. Really, I'm waiting.

Please explain how Saddam Hussein has ever been a threat to America.

And what you don't get is we're not worried about sudden severe weather changes. We're talking about gradual severe weather changes.

Even if global temperature is cyclical, we are adding to the effect of the up cycle through emissions.

For an answer to your question, just look at the ozone layer. The hole in the ozone layer has no evidence of being cyclical.
post #61 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Yadda, yadda, yadda, ....
.
.
.

In other words, there is no good reason to think it will occur.
.
.
.
Please explain how Teh Global Warming™ has caused severe weather changes. Really, I'm waiting.

Tell that to the IPCC. It's not a matter of if, it's just a matter of when. There are literally only a handful of "so called" climate scientists that strongly disagree with the scientific consensus of AGW. These "so called" climate scientists, by and large, are no longer doing active climate research, don't publish in established peer reviewed climate science literature/journals, or even publish in the broader scientific literature such as Science or Nature.

All one needs to do to be convinced that climate change (aka global warming) is real and currently occurring is to look at the shrinking Arctic ice sheet, look at shrinking glaciers globally, look at the warming occurring in sub-polar regions (earlier springs and later autumns).

All one needs to be convinced that this warming is due to AGW, is to look at the rise of CO2 due to human burning of fossil fuels.

All one needs to do to be convinced that rising GHG's are causing this warming, is to look at the nearly two dozen GCM's that show the cause and effect relationship of human generated GHG's and rising seasonal, regional, and global temperatures,

All one needs to do to be convinced of AGW is to look at the global temperature records dating back to the late 19th century. Empirical and observational data don't lie, and that's a basic fact that you just can't ignore by saying it isn't so. Or look at the CO2 data going back 800,000 years from ice cores, or look at other temperature proxies that exist in the geological historical record.

So go right ahead, keep posting wingnut editorial links, keep posting dubious MSM links, keep thinking/wishing AGW away. As for me, I'm sticking to the facts that the hard science shows us to be true, that you can't simply wish AGW away by thinking or saying it isn't so.

Actions (or in this case inactions) do speak louder than words.
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 #62 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Lots of people will buy air conditioners. Others might die. Isn't it better to reduce emissions as much as we can so that people don't have to buy something to fix the situation?

People are always buying something to fix the situation. Do you think the survival situation was better before heaters, glass windows, insulation, etc. were created?

Finally it isn't just a choice between buying or not buying. Those declaring the warming to be a problem... a problem that ends up with fewer people dying... are demanding the money of these people to "fight" the problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Actually the refrigerator (or freezer) was a metaphor for the long term effects of increased GHG emissions, although I understand how you could have misread my intent, as I myself pondered it's misinterpretation after I wrote it.

The way I read the British health report is that the less cold environment saves more lives than the intermittent heat waves, as I showed in my previous post. That a MSM news source only highlights the negative effects and not the net positive effects (less deaths overall) is disingenuous and misleading.

Of course, we're only talking about one rather small country in a temperate climate to begin with, not the net effects globally.

Also, I don't have a problem with those that would be most affected by the heat waves (e. g. at highest risk of dying) using AC.

As to the Planet Death scenario, no it is not within the realm of possible outcomes, since life began on Earth, a 100% extinction event has never occurred, what proof can you put forward that AGW will be the unique difference that causes a 100% extinction event? Like I've already stated, your position of argumentation on this point is 100% hyperbole. \

We are pretty much in 100% agreement. However it is important to note WHY that media source misleads because it isn't just that source. There was a very good reason Tonton wanted to bring up military thing and the reality is he got the relationships wrong. It is all about fear-mongering. For every person on the right you've got declaring that the terrorists will kill us, you've got someone on the left declaring that the weather gods will kill us via global warming. Fewer people dying doesn't make us want to sacrifice a virgin on the Global Warming alter and thus give up our tax dollars.

This is why the Gore film while well intentioned was chastised for scientific inaccuracy. The people noting the inaccuracy were not against global warming, they were against the fear mongering. The global warming statements have become more and more strident over time as the real motives become apparent. It isn't about prevent harm, it is about control.

So the real issue is whether global climate change really equals massive global harm. Since we know almost everything adapts to change long term he answer is no.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Junk Science, (sponsored by) The British Government