I did. Sold the Prius and now am driving a Tahoe. Much more comfortable and lower cost per mile.
Global Warming now officially bullshit
- Thread starter hellblazer
- Start date
I did. Sold the Prius and now am driving a Tahoe. Much more comfortable and lower cost per mile.
Anyone that believes we haven't had a negative impact on atmospheric conditions needs to have their heads checked... how much so remains a mystery.
Some of the responses here are really amazing. Man, some of you people seem just straight up brainwashed.
The point of this thread isn't Fox or Beck or whatever other knee-jerk reaction some of you morons have. I could have posted the same content from a thousand other sources, I was just watching Monckton at the time who's a pretty funny Brit and he was talking about it.
But here's the point.
The UN is slowly laying the groundwork to make the case that we owe a 'climate debt' because of our carbon dioxide emissions. And because we've been emitting so much CO2, we're supposed to pay all these poor countries who haven't emitted as much.
I'm not sure how giving these countries money helps the environment, but whatever. It's only important in a secondary sense.
This grand plan is based off their computer models that forecast/predict heat getting trapped in the atmosphere from our CO2 emissions. It's all based on that. Their main point is, "CO2 is bad!".
Ok, so this MIT scientist Lindzen has been collecting data for 20-30 years. And he finally presented his data, which directly contradicted the UN's computer models.
So he's saying CO2 emissions don't have nearly the catastrophic effect Gore and his minions have been saying it does - which would deal a huge blow to the UN's plans. Without their "CO2 is bad" premise, there's no 'climate debt' for the U.S. to pay.
So if you want to discuss the data Lindzen collected, go right ahead. If you want to try and smear the scientist by cowardly avoiding the data and saying "those evil oil companies contributed to the study...", I suppose you could do that too.
That seems like a pretty bitch move to me. If you're so committed to global warming that you have to demonize scientists that produce contradicting data WITHOUT disproving the actual data, you're only going to come off as pretty pathetic.
Instead I've seen what looks like programmed sheep who have some bizarre ingrained reaction to some TV personality, and are so closed-minded they don't even hear the data being discussed. That is some amazing tunnel vision I hope I never develop. It's gotta be great for never hearing a contrary view - you have your 'accepted' sources and 'bad' sources. Nice, safe way of never getting your preconceived notions challenged.
But forget Beck or Fox or any of that shit. You're missing the point. The point is Lindzen's data which directly contradicts the foundation the UN's plans are built on. You can expect him to be smeared and attacked by the same type of shit Moxie tried to pull. But they will never be able to disprove the data.
EDIT: Here's the actual paper for those interested. It basically says warmer oceans emit more energy, acting as a kind of stabilizer.
And this is a side by side look. Lindzen's data is top-left. Everything else is the UN's computer models.
The point of this thread isn't Fox or Beck or whatever other knee-jerk reaction some of you morons have. I could have posted the same content from a thousand other sources, I was just watching Monckton at the time who's a pretty funny Brit and he was talking about it.
But here's the point.
The UN is slowly laying the groundwork to make the case that we owe a 'climate debt' because of our carbon dioxide emissions. And because we've been emitting so much CO2, we're supposed to pay all these poor countries who haven't emitted as much.
I'm not sure how giving these countries money helps the environment, but whatever. It's only important in a secondary sense.
This grand plan is based off their computer models that forecast/predict heat getting trapped in the atmosphere from our CO2 emissions. It's all based on that. Their main point is, "CO2 is bad!".
Ok, so this MIT scientist Lindzen has been collecting data for 20-30 years. And he finally presented his data, which directly contradicted the UN's computer models.
So he's saying CO2 emissions don't have nearly the catastrophic effect Gore and his minions have been saying it does - which would deal a huge blow to the UN's plans. Without their "CO2 is bad" premise, there's no 'climate debt' for the U.S. to pay.
So if you want to discuss the data Lindzen collected, go right ahead. If you want to try and smear the scientist by cowardly avoiding the data and saying "those evil oil companies contributed to the study...", I suppose you could do that too.
That seems like a pretty bitch move to me. If you're so committed to global warming that you have to demonize scientists that produce contradicting data WITHOUT disproving the actual data, you're only going to come off as pretty pathetic.
Instead I've seen what looks like programmed sheep who have some bizarre ingrained reaction to some TV personality, and are so closed-minded they don't even hear the data being discussed. That is some amazing tunnel vision I hope I never develop. It's gotta be great for never hearing a contrary view - you have your 'accepted' sources and 'bad' sources. Nice, safe way of never getting your preconceived notions challenged.
But forget Beck or Fox or any of that shit. You're missing the point. The point is Lindzen's data which directly contradicts the foundation the UN's plans are built on. You can expect him to be smeared and attacked by the same type of shit Moxie tried to pull. But they will never be able to disprove the data.
EDIT: Here's the actual paper for those interested. It basically says warmer oceans emit more energy, acting as a kind of stabilizer.
And this is a side by side look. Lindzen's data is top-left. Everything else is the UN's computer models.
Some of the responses here are really amazing. Man, some of you people seem just straight up brainwashed.
The point of this thread isn't Fox or Beck or whatever other knee-jerk reaction some of you morons have. I could have posted the same content from a thousand other sources, I was just watching Monckton at the time who's a pretty funny Brit and he was talking about it.
But here's the point.
The UN is slowly laying the groundwork to make the case that we owe a 'climate debt' because of our carbon dioxide emissions. And because we've been emitting so much CO2, we're supposed to pay all these poor countries who haven't emitted as much.
I'm not sure how giving these countries money helps the environment, but whatever. It's only important in a secondary sense.
This grand plan is based off their computer models that forecast/predict heat getting trapped in the atmosphere from our CO2 emissions. It's all based on that. Their main point is, "CO2 is bad!".
Ok, so this MIT scientist Lindzen has been collecting data for 20-30 years. And he finally presented his data, which directly contradicted the UN's computer models.
So he's saying CO2 emissions don't have nearly the catastrophic effect Gore and his minions have been saying it does - which would deal a huge blow to the UN's plans. Without their "CO2 is bad" premise, there's no 'climate debt' for the U.S. to pay.
So if you want to discuss the data Lindzen collected, go right ahead. If you want to try and smear the scientist by cowardly avoiding the data and saying "those evil oil companies contributed to the study...", I suppose you could do that too.
That seems like a pretty bitch move to me. If you're so committed to global warming that you have to demonize scientists that produce contradicting data WITHOUT disproving the actual data, you're only going to come off as pretty pathetic.
Instead I've seen what looks like programmed sheep who have some bizarre ingrained reaction to some TV personality, and are so closed-minded they don't even hear the data being discussed. That is some amazing tunnel vision I hope I never develop. It's gotta be great for never hearing a contrary view - you have your 'accepted' sources and 'bad' sources. Nice, safe way of never getting your preconceived notions challenged.
But forget Beck or Fox or any of that shit. You're missing the point. The point is Lindzen's data which directly contradicts the foundation the UN's plans are built on. You can expect him to be smeared and attacked by the same type of shit Moxie tried to pull. But they will never be able to disprove the data.
EDIT: Here's the actual paper for those interested. It basically says warmer oceans emit more energy, acting as a kind of stabilizer.
And this is a side by side look. Lindzen's data is top-left. Everything else is the UN's computer models.
Again... Lindzen is one scientist, who is on the payroll of OPEC and ExxonMobil... vs. thousands of other scientists who are not.
I hope you have proof of this. I'm not about to let a bunch of braindead liberal sheep continue to regurgitate lies without being called out on them.
(Queue a link from Moxie....)
What is a negative impact? Because that is the enviro argument. That man is a scourge on this earth. That industrialization is ruining the earth, and we all need to eat less meat, and use less power, and travel less. We need to lower our standard of living, instead of solving our environmental problems by continuing to evolve.
I'm curious because we are part of the ecosystem, and human development is going to change the ecosystem. So how our impact, by virtue of existing, is a negative is beyond me.
It presumes man is not part of nature.
I disagree of course. We, and our evolution are just as natural as an earthquake or a species extinction.
But they are on the payroll of whom? All of those scientists are on the payroll of someone as well, right? NASA scientists have to consider who funds them when they come out for or against anything. These scientists all have someone funding their research. Why is it bad if big oil funds you, but ok if the UN (which stands to get a lot out of carbon credits) funds you?
One of my favorite economists, Bob Murphy, is on the payroll of a right wing, pro-energy group. But Bob is one of the most sincere and intelligent young economists in the world. I've seen ad hominem attacks on him due to who he works for, but never against the veracity of his economic arguments or conclusions.
Don't attack the man. Attack the argument. And frankly, the science isn't settled.
This is exactly what I said would happen. It would be funny if it wasn't so predictable.
Anyone else want to cowardly smear the scientist and not discuss the data?
That's the reason I don't listen to O'Reilley, Glenn Beck, Keith Olberman, Rachel Madow, Lou Dobbs, Chris Matthews, etc. I did turn on Glenn Beck earlier, and caught him ranting about some goverment conspiracy that's limiting/taking away our freedoms... I could swear he was a liberal commentator from a few years ago ranting about the patriot act. Same shit, different day, different party. Each side rants on issues when it's convenient for them.
As for the global warming graphs, anyone want to give those things a summary? Not a science major here, and don't feel like spending time reading. And I'm sure there are other graphs out there agreeing with the UN models, just saying...
And since when does the US follow the suggestion/advice/guidance/rules of the UN? And since when does the US pay what it owes the UN for dues (especially excluding Ted Turner covering that gap in the past)? The UN can do all it wants, but it won't matter. The US hasn't ratified the Kyoto Protocol, and all the info I can currently find doesn't point to any plans to do so.
So yeah, the sky is falling.
Why aren't you posting any data from the other side? The side which 99% of the scientists out there support? And... by the way, Lindzen doesn't say global warming is bullshit, he says the cause is unknown. An article he wrote in 2001: http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=95000606
Oh, come on. This was the first time I had listened to Beck (literally the first day) and I wasn't confused.
He plainly stated that this was an automobile dealer issue, and the computers of automobile dealers that were participating in the Cash for Cunkers program were essentially government property. He had an automobile dealer on his show that day, and the dealer was explaining it from his point of view.
I don't agree with Beck on a lot of things, but try to avoid the bandwagon of anti-Beck sentiment and listen with an open mind.
Thousands of people accepted the earth was flat at one time too. Many of the great thinkers like Isaac Newton (an astronomer, mathematician and physicist) thought that God moved the heavens.
Arguments to the # of scientists don't make the case. Thousands of scientists can be wrong, and have been wrong before. If their premises are incorrect, then 100% of scientists in history could believe something, and that still wouldn't make it true.
For example, thousands of scientists believe in God. Does that mean evolution is false?
The most damning criticism of the AGW theories is causality. If man causes climate change, then why does climate change lead CO2 instead of the other way around?
Another criticism, is that none of the models which predict AGW, predicted the current cooling period.
The former is something none of these climatologists have answered, because it keeps coming up, and it is ignored, even though the data backs up the query.
The latter, is an appeal to a negative, which is normally poor form however it does prompt the following. The models aren't always wrong because they didn't predict this cooling, but it is clear that they are not always right, and so can't be taken as absolutely correct.
So if AGW supporters can't rely on the IPCC models (which btw, had to revise their data that the 90s were the hottest decade, to the 30s were the hottest decade), and the earth is getting cooler when they said it would get warmer, and climatic change actually leads CO2, then I wonder what the case actually rests on.
In full disclosure, I have never worked for big oil, I walk as much as possible and I am fanatical about energy conservation and recycling and all of that other tree hugger bullshit like granola bars and tie dye.
Arguments to the # of scientists don't make the case. Thousands of scientists can be wrong, and have been wrong before. If their premises are incorrect, then 100% of scientists in history could believe something, and that still wouldn't make it true.
For example, thousands of scientists believe in God. Does that mean evolution is false?
The most damning criticism of the AGW theories is causality. If man causes climate change, then why does climate change lead CO2 instead of the other way around?
Another criticism, is that none of the models which predict AGW, predicted the current cooling period.
The former is something none of these climatologists have answered, because it keeps coming up, and it is ignored, even though the data backs up the query.
The latter, is an appeal to a negative, which is normally poor form however it does prompt the following. The models aren't always wrong because they didn't predict this cooling, but it is clear that they are not always right, and so can't be taken as absolutely correct.
So if AGW supporters can't rely on the IPCC models (which btw, had to revise their data that the 90s were the hottest decade, to the 30s were the hottest decade), and the earth is getting cooler when they said it would get warmer, and climatic change actually leads CO2, then I wonder what the case actually rests on.
In full disclosure, I have never worked for big oil, I walk as much as possible and I am fanatical about energy conservation and recycling and all of that other tree hugger bullshit like granola bars and tie dye.
Well, if the Oil Companies are paying the scientist who's conflicting research is being presented only on fox news, then they are also most likely paying fox news under the table to present it as being factual.
No I don't have proof of payment, lol. So don't ask me to present evidence that's obviously being concealed to preserve the "fair and balanced" image of Fox News.
You guys have fun over thinking this...
The actual paper has things like :
"it appears"
"though it is difficult to pin down such high sensitivities with any precision"
"it should be noted that our analysis has only considered the tropics"
They are in no way claiming that they have officially proven all past global warming research as bullshit.
Then the scientists came along and got burned at the stake for suggesting otherwise. I'll agree though that most scientists don't like to go against the grain. People like Nikola Tesla first got laughed at for what seemed like wild ideas.
Are we now experiencing global cooling?
"it appears"
"though it is difficult to pin down such high sensitivities with any precision"
"it should be noted that our analysis has only considered the tropics"
They are in no way claiming that they have officially proven all past global warming research as bullshit.
Then the scientists came along and got burned at the stake for suggesting otherwise. I'll agree though that most scientists don't like to go against the grain. People like Nikola Tesla first got laughed at for what seemed like wild ideas.
CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?
Are we now experiencing global cooling?
this is the best I can do :
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIOREqBcFuY"]YouTube - Fox News Slip Up - Jenny Blow Job[/ame]