Man Made Global Warming Theory = Human Excrement

[kniper]

[ QUOTE ]
My My you are testy. I hear that about religous types. You question their religion and they get all defensive and get into attack mode. Everyone is stupid, they are above question.

Ok, wacki, the we are all going to drown in 100 years and Exxon / George Bush did it to us. They melted the ice caps.

Rest easily. Tell Rev. Gore all is well on two plus two. I am among the converted now. Praise the UN. Praise the UN. Praise the UN. Repeat.


[/ QUOTE ]

I've always been confused how global warming skeptics seem to rationalize the huge push for global warming countermeasures as some fascist plot to control resources/countries/etc. Just how is it that this conspiracy amongst the world's top scientists came about?

[JOHNY CA$H]

[ QUOTE ]
The IPCC is a highly politcal organization. Most of the so called "scientists" are government shills who are part of a international group that hates the US and capitalism as a whole.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you know this... how?

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
My My you are testy. I hear that about religous types. You question their religion and they get all defensive and get into attack mode. Everyone is stupid, they are above question.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not mad, I just have little or no respect for anything you've said because you prefer pop culture over actual science.

Al Gore, newsweek and the UN are irrelevant. What matters is what the scientific community are saying. And if the worldwide scientific community happen to use the UN to communicate to the world it may be a political blunder but so what. The IPCC != the UN. It's an entirely different group of people. Newsweek has a very poor track record of reporting the science correctly.

If there is anything I hold in high regard it is the American Geophysical Union, Goddard, and assessment reports from the national academies.

If any side of this debate brings up the "UN", "Newsweek" or "hypocritical Al Gore" then they are just displaying their ignorance and practicing demagoguery. What any of those entities say is irrelevant. Your preference of referencing pop-culture (newsweek, cooling, UN, etc) over actual scientific reports to debunk the scientific community says mountains about your mentality and educational background.

Reference a journal and we can talk. Reference Al Gore or Newsweek and you are a waste of time.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
...and glacier melt and there are big question marks.


[/ QUOTE ]

There is a good article in the recent Smithsonian about Lonnie Thompson and his efforts to retrieve, store, and catalog glacier ice (from alpine glaciers mostly) from both the southern and northern hemispheres. They contain a good bit of data about temperature variations, precipitation patterns, atmospheric chemistry, and other information derived from dust, pollen, and plant residue embedded in the ice. Here is more information:

Thompson wins prize

And this:

Latest Ice Core

Glad this man is about collecting material that will add to human knowlegde about variations in climate change, both local and world wide.

-Zeno

[wacki]

Zeno, thanks for stopping by. I will check it out. Just found this pic from wikipedia. Looks like the sun-times is a tabloid. I'm not at all surprised.

[NewTeaBag]

Ah well. Thread delivers!

What does it deliver again?

Doubters, however misinformed, are shouted down, insulted and their intelligence questioned by the overinformed, though supremely conceited, Wacki.

As I said in a previous thread weeks ago, If the primary proponents of global climate change are either Al Gore (minimal grasp of actual science) or Wacki (strong grasp of the scientific studies but, dare to disagree and I shall explain the scientific case in the most offensive and abusive manner) is it a wonder it's hard for people to get a grasp of the situation?

Both sides have valid points, but once again the debate is let down by personalities.

Many of the models are unproven (given the timespans of the earth's climate)
-That said they are the best predicitons of a large amount of scientists ergo it's deffo worth heeding the warnings.

Many of the Global Climate Change advocates do come off as arrogant, religious zealots.
-That said, if we look past the politicized rhetoric there is a strong case from their argument.

Man is arrogant to assume they can predict the future with any major amount of precision WRT a science that is the tiniest fraction in age compared to the data it attempts manipulate/analyze.
-That said, once again, it is also blatantly ignorant to ignore blinding warning signs and NOT do something to prevent even a potential catastrophe.


Any chance of either side backing off the personalities approach and having a rational discussion? OH NVM, I forgot. This is the politics forum, where, aside from a few rare cases, he who shouts loudest and insults best, is champion and the issues are themselves merely a vehicle for the contests.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Wacki (strong grasp of the scientific studies but, dare to disagree and I shall explain the scientific case in the most offensive and abusive manner) is it a wonder it's hard for people to get a grasp of the situation?


[/ QUOTE ]

I treated adios and kickabuck with respect. As for Praetorian Card I only gave him a taste of his own medicine.

He called the entire scientific community frauds when they obviously aren't. I mean do I really need to treat somebody like that with respect?

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My My you are testy. I hear that about religous types. You question their religion and they get all defensive and get into attack mode. Everyone is stupid, they are above question.

Ok, wacki, the we are all going to drown in 100 years and Exxon / George Bush did it to us. They melted the ice caps.

Rest easily. Tell Rev. Gore all is well on two plus two. I am among the converted now. Praise the UN. Praise the UN. Praise the UN. Repeat.


[/ QUOTE ]

I've always been confused how global warming skeptics seem to rationalize the huge push for global warming countermeasures as some fascist plot to control resources/countries/etc. Just how is it that this conspiracy amongst the world's top scientists came about?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is much disinformation and misinterpretation about 'Global Warming". I’ll make a few general comments. One reason for terse reactions on this forum is the continual popping up of threads about this issue every few months and the title of the OP says a lot in my opinion about the quality of some posters.

But that aside, it is best to understand that there are two main themes to what is occurring at present.

1) Scientific Research in relation to climate change.
2) The public and political reaction to this research.

From number 1 is the plain fact that almost no one from the general public reads the science journals that peer-reviewed research is published in. Number 2 is influence by the poor reporting that is inherent in science journalism or having reporters give their interpretations of the science research. This is a perennial problem, and not just limited to the current issue of global warming by the way, and does much to cloud public perception and reaction to pure science research. It does not help matters that politicians and other media figures or famous people wade in with all sorts of silliness and exaggerations. This muddies the water even more. And there are of course vested interests that foul the waters even more.

My second point is that the scientists involve in the research have little impact or input into what policies are needed or will eventually be enacted, if any, to counteract the possible ill effects (there may be of course some beneficial effects) of the rise of the global average temperature over the next 100 years. They may make policy statements or recommendations but these are missed, misinterpreted, and otherwise fouled up in the din of political hooey that surrounds this issue and more than likely stupid ideas will be enacted (Kyoto). And always by those that wish to gain advantages, get votes, score points against opponents, and also influence the throbbing masses and the willfully ignorant mob of human rabble that inhibits this cosmic ball of vomit. In other words, humanity gets what it deserves, good and hard I hope.

It is also understandable why many people wish to doubt or remain overly sceptical about how much humans actually influence the global climate. They see this as an excuse for governments or other organizations to intrude more and more into their lives. A very legitimate concern and one I share. I personnal think the UN should be disbanded and the building turned into a giant brothel. And with that I think I am done with this. I get tired of all the bullsh*t that surrounds this issue.

-Zeno

[GoodCallYouWin]

wacki :

What do you make of the argument we are warming up because we're coming out of an ice age? Also what are your thoughts on methane gas from cows and other sources?

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
But that aside, it is best to understand that there are two main themes to what is occurring at present.

1) Scientific Research in relation to climate change.
2) The public and political reaction to this research.

From number 1 is the plain fact that almost no one from the general public reads the science journals that peer-reviewed research is published in. Number 2 is influence by the poor reporting that is inherent in science journalism or having reporters give there interpretations of the science research. This is a perennial problem, and not just limited to the current issue of global warming by the way, and does much to cloud public perception and reaction to pure science research. It does not help matters that politicians and other media figures or famous people wade in with all sorts of silliness and exaggerations. This muddies the water even more. And there are of course vested interests that foul the waters even more.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is supersupertrue. It's ironic that the most effective popularizers of science focus on either quantum mechanics, which laypeople have no reason to understand, or proving that God doesn't exist, which isn't science at all. For relevant issues, there really are no reliable intermediaries to transmit scientific understanding to the public. Even worse, the discussion seems to focus almost 100% on whether climate change is occurring and how much rather than the much more productive question of what can/should be done and how much it will cost. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]