UnderGround Forums
 

PoliticalGround >> Global warming = liberal agenda?


2/4/07 5:05 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
JackFunk
135 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04-Feb-07
Member Since: 04/29/2003
Posts: 4427
"There was once a consensus among scientist that smoking did not cause cancer." This is how science works, as new data and findings are uncovered, scientific theories of understanding will also change. This is crucial to the scientific method.
2/4/07 5:10 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
MrFixit
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04-Feb-07
Member Since: 09/09/2006
Posts: 2667
I agree Jack. That's why I laugh as some appeal to authority with "The consensus among scientist is that man caused global warming" It means nothing.
2/4/07 5:12 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
jellyman
7 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04-Feb-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 18653
Yep, don;t bother listening to any international bodies of science on this issue, just the ones funded by Exxon
2/4/07 5:22 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Jbraswell
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04-Feb-07
Member Since: 07/15/2002
Posts: 4676
"Real science is based on proof, not consensus." This is the consensus of thousands of researchers doing the science, you fucking troll.
2/4/07 5:24 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
MrFixit
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04-Feb-07
Member Since: 09/09/2006
Posts: 2672
Jellybrained bitch.
2/4/07 5:27 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
MrFixit
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04-Feb-07
Member Since: 09/09/2006
Posts: 2673
"This is the consensus of thousands of researchers doing the science" Get back to me when ALL the researchers doing the science agree. That will mean they have found PROOF instead of a consensus of speculation.
2/4/07 5:45 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
angryinch
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04-Feb-07
Member Since: 03/14/2004
Posts: 24555
"That's why I laugh as some appeal to authority with "The consensus among scientist is that man caused global warming" It means nothing." ok..I'll spell it out one more time. The report was not an appeal to authority. The people who wrote the report ARE the authority.
2/4/07 6:07 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
cuzz63
3 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04-Feb-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 3446
"What happened to the ice age that was looming in the late 70's and early 80's?" They fixed it, problem is they overcompensated...ergo now we have global warming.
2/4/07 6:17 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
jellyman
7 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04-Feb-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 18654
"Jellyman, you are quick to point out the nefarious motives of corporations to skew the truth but quickly jump on board the "international scientific" ideas that we the superpower are creating this worldwide event." I don't remember mention of the IPCC report singling out the USA or even mentioning Kyoto, perhaps you have some source for this? MrFixit Good arguement
2/4/07 6:19 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
jellyman
7 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04-Feb-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 18655
Oh and marines1 I work for a corporation. I KNOW it's all about money. Legally a CEO has to think of shareholders first, last, and always.
2/4/07 6:38 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
jellyman
7 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04-Feb-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 18656
"Description of Appeal to Authority An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form: 1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S. 2. Person A makes claim C about subject S. 3. Therefore, C is true. This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious." http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html IPCC is a legit authority
2/4/07 6:46 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Jbraswell
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04-Feb-07 07:23 PM
Member Since: 07/15/2002
Posts: 4677
"there are thousands of scienticts who disagree completely and they are not being heard or are ridiculed much like you are doing on this thread." First, the fact that some scientists disagree doesn't change the fact that a solid majority do. Hell, there are incredibly smart scientists who don't think that AIDS is caused by HIV, but something tells me you won't be interested in a blood transfusion with a gay, Haitian, hemophiliac, drug user. Second, those that disagree are not ridiculed. Their ideas are discussed seriously in scientific forums. "Get back to me when ALL the researchers doing the science agree." See my above response to dumbass1. "Get back to me when ALL the researchers doing the science agree. "That will mean they have found PROOF instead of a consensus of speculation. " Wait, I thought you said consensus wasn't science, but now you're telling me that consensus constitutes proof. Make up your mind.
2/4/07 6:48 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
jellyman
7 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04-Feb-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 18657
yeah, if all the scientists agree, isn;t that 'just' more consensus? JBrawell has a good point
2/4/07 8:10 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
jellyman
7 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04-Feb-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 18659
"Global warming skeptics have regularly put forth the theory the comparative warmth of cities via the "urban heat island effect" -- whereby metropolitan areas register considerably higher temperatures than their surroundings -- has skewed the global temperature record. For instance, at JunkScience.com, a website founded by Steven Milloy, who has claimed that global warming represents "flawed science," a September 12, 2004, article suggested that the urban heat island effect "create[s] the illusion of 'global warming.' " While the existence of the urban heat island effect is not disputed within the scientific community, several authoritative studies published in recent years have found that the effect on the global temperature record is negligible. A 2001 study by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) determined that between 1900 and 1990, the effect of urban heat islands on the global temperature record was no more than 0.05 degrees Celsius. By contrast, the surface temperature record is estimated to have warmed by 0.6 degrees to 0.8 degrees Celsius over the past century. In 2003, Thomas C. Peterson of the National Climactic Data Center published a study that examined "the impact of urban heat islands (UHIs) on ... temperature observations" and found that "no statistically significant impact of urbanization could be found in annual temperatures." More recently, a study conducted by David Parker, of Britain's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, also proved that the urban heat island effect is minimal. Published in the November 18, 2004, edition of Nature, the study compared temperature measurements taken in urban areas on calm and windy nights: Controversy has persisted over the influence of urban warming on reported large-scale surface-air temperature trends. Urban heat islands occur mainly at night and are reduced in windy conditions. Here we show that, globally, temperatures over land have risen as much on windy nights as on calm nights, indicating that the observed overall warming is not a consequence of urban development. " marines1 you posted this above passage, but it seems to me it debunks the notion that global warming can be explained by 'urban heat islands' as put forth by junkscience.com
2/4/07 8:13 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
jellyman
7 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04-Feb-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 18660
"Speaking of losing credibility, jellyman is the same guy that said marijuana has no ill health effects on the human body." LOL when did I say that? It can certainly cause bronchitis if you smoke it a lot.
2/4/07 8:20 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
jellyman
7 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04-Feb-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 18661
So let's see - a junkscience.com op-ed piece is not a study, and Malloy gives nothing but his say-so for his premises. Another study is referred to saying the notion of heat islands as put forth by junkscience.com is bunk. And Malloy is not an authority compared to the IPCC, as he's not even a scientist. What am I missing? BTW, I would have some patience if I were you, I have a family to interact with, dishes to watch, garbage to take out, things like that. Personal insults will buy you nothing. Maybe if I was the type to get mad and descend into a flame war, they would be more effective, but no.
2/4/07 8:26 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
jellyman
7 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04-Feb-07 08:29 PM
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 18662
"I have been in operational meteorology since 1978, and I know dozens and dozens of broadcast meteorologists all over the country. Our big job: look at a large volume of raw data and come up with a public weather forecast for the next seven days. I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype. I know there must be a few out there, but I can't find them" Google Heidi Cullen she's being targeted by worldnetdaily, so I guess she's doing something right
2/4/07 8:31 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
angryinch
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04-Feb-07
Member Since: 03/14/2004
Posts: 24556
"I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype." and I don't know a single TV meteorologist who can manage to get a weather forecast right. The people who came up with these reports are waaaay beyond what a tv weatherman does.
2/4/07 8:34 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
jellyman
7 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04-Feb-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 18664
actually, is a weather man or a meteorologist a legitimate authority on climatology and GW science?
2/4/07 9:25 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
SKARHEAD
59 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04-Feb-07
Member Since: 05/11/2004
Posts: 11650
ttt
2/4/07 9:39 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Jbraswell
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04-Feb-07
Member Since: 07/15/2002
Posts: 4679
This is the part where marines1 will run away because his cut-and-paste tactic has been exposed. He will wait a week before reappearing on another thread and advancing the same flawed argument. He and LeShat share a playbook.
2/4/07 9:42 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
New World Samurai
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04-Feb-07 09:44 PM
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 6180
"Liberals are pro-science so they accept the scientific method, and scientific theories such a evolution, physics, chemistry, global warming etc. Conservatives are anti-sceince so they have faith in such things as creationism, intelligent design, and opposing global warming." I'm a conservative and a trained physicist. If the "globe" is "warming" then so be it. What I'm concerned about is the messianic fever that the left has about it. This is their golden opportunity! The answer to their dreams! Chicken little for real! Finally, they're no longer crying wolf [*], the wolf is real! A secular substitute for religion! Here is the lever that they can use to realize their social justice schemes, to radically remake the world according to their fantasies. But, hey, it's weather! It gets hot. It gets cold. We have ice ages, then we don't. What you gonna do about it? jelly and hubris on the same thread. Joy. The central question is: Is there anything that we can do about it which will result in less harm than just letting things be? I am close to certainty that the answer is NO. [*] Environmentalists have the worst track record for prediction. A well-regarded Stanford biology professor was predicting for the 1970s mass starvation and cannibalism due to the inability to produce enough food. Whoops. That's just one example. Chicken little is a regular speaker on the environmental hysteric speaking circuit.
2/4/07 9:52 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
New World Samurai
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04-Feb-07 09:55 PM
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 6181
Why the rush to judgment? Let the science take its course. Unless, of course, you have a political agenda, you are in a hurry to do something. Not an authority, of course, since he is a climate heretic (this is religion, remember-- it is not enough to debate heretics, they must be punished): http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=7e60e3fa-802a-23ad-4291-e3975cbb96cb&Region_id=&Issue_id MIT Climate Scientist Calls Fears of Global Warming 'Silly' - Equates Concerns to 'Little Kids' Attempting to "Scare Each Other" Lindzen mocked fears of global warming by comparing them to children's imaginations. "I think it's mainly just like little kids locking themselves in dark closets to see how much they can scare each other and themselves," Lindzen said. Lindzen, a past UN IPCC contributor, also explained how only a dozen scientists were involved in writing the 2001(Third Assessment Report) IPCC media hyped Summary For Policymakers that purported to speak for thousands of scientists.
2/4/07 10:06 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
New World Samurai
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04-Feb-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 6184
WE MUST DO SOMETHING ABOUT ... global cooling? "Oct. 23, 2006 - In April, 1975, in an issue mostly taken up with stories about the collapse of the American-backed government of South Vietnam, NEWSWEEK published a small back-page article about a very different kind of disaster. Citing "ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically," the magazine warned of an impending "drastic decline in food production." Political disruptions stemming from food shortages could affect "just about every nation on earth." Scientists urged governments to consider emergency action to head off the terrible threat of . . . well, if you had been following the climate-change debates at the time, you'd have known that the threat was: global cooling." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15391426/site/newsweek/ A proposed solution: melting the polar ice caps! Good thing we hopped right onto that train. There's consensus, and there is truth. There is often space betwixt the twain.
2/4/07 10:26 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
New World Samurai
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04-Feb-07 10:34 PM
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 6185
How about that hockey stick graph? You know, one of the centerpieces of the 2001 IPCC report? This is a textbook case of the generation and enforcement of groupthink: http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/03/03/hockey-stick-1998-2005-rip/ http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba478/

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.