UnderGround Forums
 

PoliticalGround >> Global warming = liberal agenda?


2/5/07 1:49 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Up With Evil
9 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 05-Feb-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 9415
"Jason, it also does not bode well for you that it is -35 degrees in parts of the U.S. today." Would you explain why not?
2/5/07 1:55 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
PoundforPound
164 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 05-Feb-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 7463
"Jason, it also does not bode well for you that it is -35 degrees in parts of the U.S. today." OMFG
2/5/07 2:01 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Jbraswell
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 05-Feb-07
Member Since: 07/15/2002
Posts: 4696
"I presented a couple of articles. You apparently only focus on one." Yes, I focused on the one whose content you didn't know, which is good evidence that you didn't read them, which is good evidence that haven't really thought about this topic, but rather have defaulted to your usual Joe-Sixpack, anti-critical, quasi-conservative stance. "I clearly said I do not know if global warming exists, I also do not know if it is man made. My argument has been that there is opposition to the belief that IF it is real and not an anomoly that it is man made." Hmm, well your last post described your position as being that the same people who believe that man-made global warming is occurring are the same ones that believed in the ice ages, bird-flu epidemics, etc. That position is wrong, and now this is your position. Why don't you do me a favor and list your positions in bullet form so that I don't get confused. "Jason, it also does not bode well for you that it is -35 degrees in parts of the U.S. today" That fact is perfectly consistent with my position.
2/5/07 3:21 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
BEEF & CHEESE
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 05-Feb-07
Member Since: 09/29/2002
Posts: 11082
"A majority of the world's leading scientists in this area are coming to the same conclusion, but that is not enough for you. So what would you consider conclusive evidence?" -For starters I reject your assumption that it is a "majority" of scientists. More importantly, all of the science on the subject is built around a couple hundred years of raw temperature data. All the doom and gloom comes from bad extrapolation in computer models with way too many variables not taken into account.
2/5/07 6:37 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
ellivville
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 05-Feb-07
Member Since: 12/14/2004
Posts: 153
Troll me this: as the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (http://www.ipcc.ch/) states: A) Global warming is occurring B) The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes is less than 5% C) The probability that this is caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases is over 90%
2/5/07 6:48 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
BEEF & CHEESE
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 05-Feb-07
Member Since: 09/29/2002
Posts: 11084
From their website: The IPCC does not carry out research nor does it monitor climate related data or other relevant parameters. It bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature. -So their opinion of the opinions out there is that global warming is ocuring and can/must be stopped. They are a political UN hack group regurgitating the same ol propoganda.
2/5/07 7:05 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: 05-Feb-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 18681
"From their website: The IPCC does not carry out research nor does it monitor climate related data or other relevant parameters. It bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature." Those fools! they should be reading junkscience.com! "So their opinion of the opinions out there is that global warming is ocuring and can/must be stopped." Opinions of the peer reviewed studies out there, i think you meant to say. Surely you can differentiate the two. 'They are a political UN hack group regurgitating the same ol propoganda. ' Peer reviewed studies = propaganda. I see.
2/5/07 7:29 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Dratherbe
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 05-Feb-07
Member Since: 03/22/2002
Posts: 7651

"*Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story."

This was one of the most insightful posts of this thread.

For those here who are not frothing adherents to the Global Warming/Stop Progress Now religion (see Hubris, Angry Inch, and anybody else who blasts non-believers in their faith as heretical), I am always concerned when politicians jump on a bandwagon.  Why?  Because it usually results in a money or power grab, like this one:

February 1, 2007

France Tells U.S. to Sign Climate Pacts or Face Tax

By KATRIN BENNHOLD

PARIS, Jan. 31 -- President Jacques Chirac has demanded that the United States sign both the Kyoto climate protocol and a future agreement that will take effect when the Kyoto accord runs out in 2012.

He said that he welcomed last week's State of the Union address in which President Bush described climate change as a "serious challenge" and acknowledged that a growing number of American politicians now favor emissions cuts.

But he warned that if the United States did not sign the agreements, a carbon tax across Europe on imports from nations that have not signed the Kyoto treaty could be imposed to try to force compliance. The European Union is the largest export market for American goods.

"A carbon tax is inevitable," Mr. Chirac said. "If it is European, and I believe it will be European, then it will all the same have a certain influence because it means that all the countries that do not accept the minimum obligations will be obliged to pay."

Trade lawyers have been divided over the legality of a carbon tax, with some saying it would run counter to international trade rules. But Mr. Chirac said other European countries would back it. "I believe we will have all of the European Union," he said.

Mr. Chirac spoke as scientists from around the world gathered in Paris to discuss an authoritative international report on climate change, portions of which will be released on Friday.

Mr. Chirac's critics say that despite his comments in support of environmental measures, his record as president is far from green. He angered environmentalists across the globe when he conducted nuclear tests in a Pacific atoll within months of coming into office in 1995. He has been a loyal ally of French farmers and their pollution-causing practices, blocking some proposed Europe-wide reforms.

Most recently, France's national plan for allocating carbon emission credits to businesses had to be revised after the European Union rejected it as too generous.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Leave it to the French to "lead the way"...

2/6/07 1:10 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Dratherbe
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 06-Feb-07
Member Since: 03/22/2002
Posts: 7657
From the first Canadian climatologist PhD: Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts? By Timothy Ball Monday, February 5, 2007 Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why. What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on? Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets. No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong? Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976. I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on. Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling. No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent. I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint. (cont.)
2/6/07 1:10 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Dratherbe
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 06-Feb-07
Member Since: 03/22/2002
Posts: 7658
(cont.) In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment? Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence. I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises. Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen. I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law. As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted. Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention. Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information. I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction. Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (www.nrsp.com), is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. He can be reached at letters@canadafreepress.com
2/6/07 1:55 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Linkage
3 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 06-Feb-07
Member Since: 03/01/2003
Posts: 7607
"-Its leftist by definition because the solution is to tax and burden the fuck out of the economy. Leftists always attack the free market and blame it for all of society's problems. For the record, the right is no better." Switching to different energy sources would create jobs. A lot of jobs. you know, kinda how progress typically has created new jobs throughout history...
2/6/07 12:15 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Jbraswell
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 06-Feb-07
Member Since: 07/15/2002
Posts: 4702
"The liberal arrogance finally seeps out." You're WAY, WAY, WAY off base if you think I'm a "liberal." I can almost guarantee you that my politics value freedom far, far more than yours.
2/6/07 9:08 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
PoundforPound
164 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 06-Feb-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 7468
Peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature hates America. And LOL @ Jbraswell being a liberal.
2/7/07 7:27 AM
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: 07-Feb-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 18689
marines1 Jraswell is a liber-something, but not a liberAL
2/7/07 7:54 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Up With Evil
9 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 07-Feb-07 07:55 AM
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 9424
"From the first Canadian climatologist PhD:" You poor rube, Tim Ball isn't Canada's first climatology PhD, he only claims to be to give him fringe baloney the veneer of authority: Whatever one may feel about Tim Ball's denial of climate change science, newspapers ought to report factual summaries of authors' credentials. You note that he "was the first Climatology PhD in Canada and worked as a Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg for 28 years". Ball received a PhD in Geography in the UK in 1982, on a topic in historical climatology. Canada already had PhDs in climatology, and it is important to recognize them and their research. Examples include Kenneth Hare, a well-respected Professor at McGill, who received his PhD in 1950, also in the UK. Climatologist Andre Robert (PhD from McGill, 1965) conducted research that laid the groundwork in atmospheric models and climate. Timothy Oke, a leader in the study of urban climate, received his PhD from McMaster in 1967. According to Ball's website, he was not a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg for 28 years. And how could he have? He did not even have an entry-level PhD until 1983, that would allow even Assistant Professor status. During much of the 28 years cited, he was a junior Lecturer who rarely published, and then spent 8 years as a geography professor. His work does not show any evidence of research regarding climate and atmosphere and the few papers he has published concern other matters. There are great gains to be made in science from conjectures and refutations, but sometimes denial is nothing more than denial. Dan Johnson, PhD Professor of Environmental Science Canada Research Chair in Sustainable Grassland Ecosystems Department of Geography University of Lethbridge http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/06/dear_tim_ball_sue_me.php
2/7/07 9:51 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Jbraswell
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 07-Feb-07
Member Since: 07/15/2002
Posts: 4703
"I do not car what he calls himself the stand he is taking on this topic is NOT libertarian but liberal." Is that why writers from both Reason magazine and the Cato Institute agree with me? You're telling me that you are more of an authority on what constitutes libertarian thinking than the highest-circulation libertarian publication (which has been publishing for over thirty years) and the largest libertarian think tank/lobby group in the country? "The reality is that you are average. You are no smarter then some of the NASCAR watching, pick up driving joe sixpacks out there. Do not run from the liberal label. Embrace it." Well, I am smarter than the vast majority of the population. That's not to say that it isn't pure luck that this is so, nor is it to say that I haven't associated with many, many people who are smarter. It is the case, though. However, that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand or your flawed arguments. The person of average intelligence is more than capable of "groking" the basics of this issue, provided he examines it dispassionately.
2/7/07 9:57 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
jimformation23
74 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 07-Feb-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 48432
marines1, braswell, despite his odd proclivity of pure libertarianism, is a smart mofo and is NOT a liberal you should learn some new comebacks, the "you're a liberal" line just made you look silly this time
2/7/07 10:23 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Up With Evil
9 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 07-Feb-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 9432
"I have examined this issue dispassionately which is why I have not reached a conclusion like yourself." I really doubt that, since the claims that you've made on this topic aren't consistent with your having read any of the legitimate peer-reviewed scientific journals on the subject.
2/7/07 10:41 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Jbraswell
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 07-Feb-07
Member Since: 07/15/2002
Posts: 4704
"There are very educated people who are raising concerns about global warming and it's veracity. That is enough for me to take pause." Again I ask, do you take pause in believing that HIV causes AIDS? Would you accept a blood transfusion from someone who was HIV+? There are very, very smart people who think that HIV causes AIDS. Why don't you consider consensus for global warming the same way that you do consensus for AIDS? "I beg to differ. You THINK you are smarter then most as well as more "enlightened" Think what you wish. You are wrong, but that's a different topic.
2/7/07 10:43 AM
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: 07-Feb-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 18700
Regards Oregon's "state climatologist" "George Taylor is a embarrassment to Oregon. He passes himself off as the official state climatologist even though Oregon doesn't have such a position. Today an article in the Oregonian ("Experts square off over climate change") quoted Governor Kulongoski: "He's not the state climatologist," the governor said. "I never appointed him. I think I would know."" link to article in the Oregonion where the governor says this guy's full of shit: http://www.oregonlive.com/oregonian/stories/index.ssf?/base/news/1170041105154270.xml&coll=7 Here's the institute of learning that gave him his title: http://www.coas.oregonstate.edu/index.cfm?fuseaction=content.search&searchtype=people&detail=1&id=338 George Taylor Discipline: No Discipline Defined Title: State Climatologist Contact Information: email: phone: (541) 737-5694 Office StAg 326 he gets paid by the Heartland Institute, who in turn are paid by tobacco and big oil http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute#Funding So: A non-climatologist occupying a non-existent post paid off by a Big Oil front says climate change is not happening. I'm just not feeling it here.
2/7/07 10:44 AM
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: 07-Feb-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 18701
I guess only liberals and libertarians like credentials that aren't made up
2/7/07 10:52 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Up With Evil
9 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 07-Feb-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 9436
"Again I ask, do you take pause in believing that HIV causes AIDS?" Note further than a Nobel-prize winning molecular biologist, Kary Mullis, is amnongst the HIV-denialists. Surely as a good credentialist I would expect Mr. marines1 to defer to the wisdom of Dr. Mullis.
2/7/07 10:54 AM
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: 07-Feb-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 18702
When a fraudulent shill says global warming science may not be correct, that gives me pause.
2/7/07 10:56 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Up With Evil
9 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 07-Feb-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 9437
I'll also note that Nobel laureate Kary Mullis is ALSO a global warming denialist. He also believes he was kidnapped by aliens. No, I'm not making that up.
2/7/07 11:02 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Scythrop
58 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 07-Feb-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 2144
I have a feeling that marines1 is warming up to give you liberals a knockout blow.

Reply Post

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