Global Warming Farce exposed for the farce it is.

[Kevin]

Sorry, but even if you completely ignore climate change, excessive carbon has been shown to have deleterious effects on both flora and fauna. The only questionable aspect of cap and trade is that it is a pretty useless and expensive policy without the full cooperation of the rest of the world. With both India and China ramping up their capacities to pollute, I question whether cap and trade or any single-country environmental reform can have any sort of significant environmental impact whatsoever.

[Ghostwriter]

^^^ I agree with your assertion that India and China will continue to contribute tremendously to the carbon output. I also agree that there is nothing we can do to change their direction. Cap and trade is ill conceived and will only further damage our economy while the developing nations continue along their merry way.

On another point. I am not so sure that we could change the climate if we wanted. I am of the opinion that any warming or cooling is more due to the natural trends in nature and specifically the Sun. My sneaking suspicion is that this whole thing is a money making scam. It appears that people such as Al Gore and his ilk stand to make bundles from the sales of carbon offsets and credits. Kind of reminds me of derivatives and junk bonds. Guess I am a little bit of a conspiracy theorist when it comes to the global warming debate.

Does anyone remember Red Dye # 2, alar, chlorfloro carbons, freon, DDT, etc.?

[DSTRen13]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

Does anyone remember Red Dye # 2, alar, chlorfloro carbons, freon, DDT, etc.?

Yes.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

Does anyone remember Red Dye # 2, alar, chlorfloro carbons, freon, DDT, etc.?

I don't disagree that a good amount of this is agenda-driven, but that doesn't mean it's wrong prima facie. Also, on your list above, at least half really don't support your point at all . . .

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I don't disagree that a good amount of this is agenda-driven, but that doesn't mean it's wrong prima facie. Also, on your list above, at least half really don't support your point at all . . .

It certainly throws into question the data used to support the argument. My point being that these were all instances of extremes taken to "protect the population". Banning DDT caused deaths from malaria to rise precipitously. I too cannot use my inhaler for my asthma and the other product does not control my attacks. Red Dye # 2 never was a threat. This just reminds me of the story of the "boy who cried wolf". Who the heck is going to believe these "experts" after all these frauds?

I reject that there is actully manmade global warming. The earth may or may not be warming but so what. How do we know that this is not just the "hand of God" sending the Earth through it's normal cyclical temperature change? How do we know that other countries will not benefit from an increase in the temperature of the Earth? How do we know that there really will be deleterious effects from failing to jump on the band wagon and spending multibillions of $$ for someone like Al Gore's pet projects? This is agenda driven and I suspect it is a racket for some intellectuals to make lots of $$$$ via grants etc. With the data now in question, I would hope that those who have been supporters would now insist that there be new reasearch into the true changes in climate temperature.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

This just reminds me of the story of the "boy who cried wolf". Who the heck is going to believe these "experts" after all these frauds?

Frauds? Seems like the wrong word to me. For it to have been a fraud, you have to show that there was intentional deceit. There is a difference between fraud and incomplete understanding.

I reject that there is actully manmade global warming. The earth may or may not be warming but so what. How do we know that this is not just the "hand of God" sending the Earth through it's normal cyclical temperature change? How do we know that other countries will not benefit from an increase in the temperature of the Earth? How do we know that there really will be deleterious effects from failing to jump on the band wagon and spending multibillions of $$ for someone like Al Gore's pet projects?

On the other hand, how do we know there are not human activities that are negatively exaccerbating global warming? Why do you reject "manmade global warming"? Is it on the basis of scientific evidence (or lack thereof), or is it for some other reason?

This is agenda driven and I suspect it is a racket for some intellectuals to make lots of $$$$ via grants etc.

There are agendas (and $$$$) driving both sides of the debate -- I don't see how that can be denied without buying into one agenda or the other.

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Frauds? Seems like the wrong word to me. For it to have been a fraud, you have to show that there was intentional deceit. There is a difference between fraud and incomplete understanding.

On the other hand, how do we know there are not human activities that are negatively exaccerbating global warming? Why do you reject "manmade global warming"? Is it on the basis of scientific evidence (or lack thereof), or is it for some other reason?

There are agendas (and $$$$) driving both sides of the debate -- I don't see how that can be denied without buying into one agenda or the other.

The data on DDT was fraudulently arrived at and was never properly vetted. Freon and the data supporting the ozone layer shrinking is very very questionable. When one doctor's, deletes or avoids opposing information while performing a "scientific" study I call it fraud. Ths is a true case of deceit on the part of the researchers at East Anglia University in England. Do you disagree? You cannot omit data that does not support your view. Sample sizes must be properly obtained so the margin of error is reasonable. Manipulated or incomplete data is worthless unless you are only trying to prove your POV at the expense of true scientific research.

I just don't believe we are "smart" enough or "dumb" enough to change nature. If we wanted to change the Earth's temperature in either direction (cooler or hotter) I do not believe we could so so. 30 years ago we were in a "global cooling" trend according to the environmentalist. When the data changed the hue and cry changed.

Soo, that is true with everything. But in this case we are accepting the environmentalist agenda without question and failing to properly vet the reports and studies that "support" the view that man is the reason for global warming.

My agenda is that I have seen man go overboard pandering to the environmental extremist and I am very concerned where this new effort and the multi billions or trillions of $$$ that will be extorted from us will take our country.

During the time the Earth has existed we have had numerous changes in the climate. Both cooling and warming. Many of these changes occured prior to man inhabiting the Earth. The data is incomplete and the timeframes are too narrow.

Follow th money!!!!

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

Ths is a true case of deceit on the part of the researchers at East Anglia University in England. Do you disagree?

Perhaps it's the lawyer in me, but I don't believe I know enough to say one way or the other. I will readily admit that it looks fishy, and they may really have been trying to pull a fast one. But even if they were, I have a hard time translating that it into an international conspiracy to perpetrate a fraud. I would need a lot more evidence of that.

I just don't believe we are "smart" enough or "dumb" enough to change nature. If we wanted to change the Earth's temperature in either direction (cooler or hotter) I do not believe we could so so.

Not smart enough to change nature? Tell that to the Dutch, who've done a pretty good job of controlling the oceans and wetlands around them. Seems to me rather naive to think we can put whatever we want to in the air without any consequence at all.

My agenda is that I have seen man go overboard pandering to the environmental extremist and I am very concerned where this new effort and the multi billions or trillions of $$$ that will be extorted from us will take our country.

To be clear, I'm all for healthy skepticism. But I think what is basically an anti-environmentalist agenda is just as biased and unproductive as a do-whatever-the-environmentalists-say agenda.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

I reject that there is actully manmade global warming. The earth may or may not be warming but so what. How do we know that this is not just the "hand of God" sending the Earth through it's normal cyclical temperature change?

I'm not sure I can get on board with the consequences of this type of thought process - it effectively undermines all scientific research.

"Getting cancer from asbestos? F- it - hand of God! Can't prove it isn't a natural cycle to kill off poor people in high-rise apartments! Here, eat lead paint chips."

The point of the scientific method is to understand the underlying reasons and consequences of phenomena - so we can do more than postulate that man can't affect the Earth (and, once again, natural systems have shown NO ability to adapt to man past a certain point - where are all the new-growth rainforests popping up to replace species' habitats, etc.?) from the seat of our pants.

How do we know that other countries will not benefit from an increase in the temperature of the Earth? How do we know that there really will be deleterious effects from failing to jump on the band wagon and spending multibillions of $$ for someone like Al Gore's pet projects?

These, however, are totally valid questions to ask - and the reason why a "Hand of God"/deus ex machina view of nature is neither ideal nor useful. These are things that should be explored - will a rise in temperature reduce the amount of arable land? How will rising oceans and fracturing ice caps affect climate?

And, perhaps most importantly: WHETHER OR NOT climate change is natural, since humans are essentially no longer subject to macroevolutionary forces due to technology, can we adapt fast or efficiently enough to offset the changes? I find that those who deny global climate change just assume the answer to that question is "yes" - without realizing that the reliance on industry to handle this is the real money trail. You're robbing Peter to pay Paul, except Paul doesn't give a shit about anything but the bottom line.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by srmom

And from an earlier article in the Times (of London - certainly not a bastian of right wing American journalism and hardly a Faux News)

Well, we wouldn't expect it to be a bastion of American anything. But it is historically considered (with some exceptions) a bastion of British Conservatism.

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Hilariously, the London Times is owned and operated by Rupert Murdoch.

Yep.

And co-sign on everything else you said.

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I'm not sure I can get on board with the consequences of this type of thought process - it effectively undermines all scientific research.

"Getting cancer from asbestos? F- it - hand of God! Can't prove it isn't a natural cycle to kill off poor people in high-rise apartments! Here, eat lead paint chips."

The point of the scientific method is to understand the underlying reasons and consequences of phenomena - so we can do more than postulate that man can't affect the Earth (and, once again, natural systems have shown NO ability to adapt to man past a certain point - where are all the new-growth rainforests popping up to replace species' habitats, etc.?) from the seat of our pants.



These, however, are totally valid questions to ask - and the reason why a "Hand of God"/deus ex machina view of nature is neither ideal nor useful. These are things that should be explored - will a rise in temperature reduce the amount of arable land? How will rising oceans and fracturing ice caps affect climate?

And, perhaps most importantly: WHETHER OR NOT climate change is natural, since humans are essentially no longer subject to macroevolutionary forces due to technology, can we adapt fast or efficiently enough to offset the changes? I find that those who deny global climate change just assume the answer to that question is "yes" - without realizing that the reliance on industry to handle this is the real money trail. You're robbing Peter to pay Paul, except Paul doesn't give a shit about anything but the bottom line.

If you falsify data and omit data that is contrary to what you wish to prove you have poisioned your own well. That is what undermines scientific research. Good grief! I have done enough research in my career to know that a good scientist tries to disprove their hypothesis. You look for all the points that are contrary to what you wish to prove and then take the data gathered both pro and con to build a statistical case for your hypothesis.

Do you not believe that there is a natural ebb and flow of temperatures throughout the epochs on Earth? I do believe there was an ice age. I do believe that there was also a time when it was exceedingly warm in the upper reaches of what is now North America and the Artic. I do not believe that man caused the ice age nor did he cause the warming during the Jurrassic period.

Are you sure there is a precipitous rise in the overall temperature of our planet? The timeframe in these "studies" are too small and do not take in all the natural variations of our climate and the effect the Sun and Sunspots have on our temperatures. You cannot focus on just 50 to 100 year timeframes and point to that as evidence that man has caused the Earth to warm. Especially if you changed or omitted data!

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

If you falsify data and omit data that is contrary to what you wish to prove you have poisioned your own well. That is what undermines scientific research. Good grief!

This is what undermines the specific research that was falsified, yes. It is not the only thing that undermines the scientific method, as shown by your semi-conflicting "Hand of God"/"who knows there aren't benefits?" postulating.

Do you not believe that there is a natural ebb and flow of temperatures throughout the epochs on Earth? I do believe there was an ice age. I do believe that there was also a time when it was exceedingly warm in the upper reaches of what is now North America and the Artic. I do not believe that man caused the ice age nor did he cause the warming during the Jurrassic period.

Of course I understand the natural cycles of temperature - and I understand that you've just committed an egregious causation/correlation fallacy in your logic. Let me be clear:

Climate change in the past is NOT and will never be proof that man cannot affect the environment in meaningful negative ways.

Are you sure there is a precipitous rise in the overall temperature of our planet? The timeframe in these "studies" are too small and do not take in all the natural variations of our climate and the effect the Sun and Sunspots have on our temperatures. You cannot focus on just 50 to 100 year timeframes and point to that as evidence that man has caused the Earth to warm. Especially if you changed or omitted data!

Actually, this is awkward logic as well - while I agree that small-sample climate data is shitty because of the inherent fluctuations (high volatility, to be more accurate), you really can't see why data from the last 50 to 100 years is the most important when looking forward? Unless the last ice age was also accompanied by an Industrial Revolution and marked increase in the number of man-made CFCs and other environmental wastes pumped into the environment, it seems like there is indeed a relevant time frame.

These dipshits mishandled and, it appears in at least some cases, manipulated data to fit their own goals. That's clear and undisputed. That does not "disprove" the entire concept of man's impact on the environment - we can go through dozens upon dozens of micro and macro examples that show that human waste has literal and severe effect on the planet, flora and fauna.

[ThetaPrincess24]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Sorry, but even if you completely ignore climate change, excessive carbon has been shown to have deleterious effects on both flora and fauna. The only questionable aspect of cap and trade is that it is a pretty useless and expensive policy without the full cooperation of the rest of the world. With both India and China ramping up their capacities to pollute, I question whether cap and trade or any single-country environmental reform can have any sort of significant environmental impact whatsoever.

Co-sign!