Global Warming now officially bullshit
- Thread starter hellblazer
- Start date
I'm not sure why you see those as red herrings, but you could try emailing them for whatever clarification it is you are looking for.
A 2 page letter from someone who has never had any type of climate change work published in a journal? We're suppose to give that equal time with the mountains of peer-reviewed research? There are also scientists out there that don't think HIV is related to AIDS.
"A warmer world is a better world. Look at weather-related death rates in winter and in summer, and the case is overwhelming that warmer is better."
That sounds like something we might hear from a contestant during the Miss Teen USA pageant.
Maybe Al Gore has said the "science is settled", but I'm not aware of any science groups saying that. The IPCC says they are at least 90% sure.
Science is more often about looking at probabilities and patterns than it is about definitively proving something. That's not a concept that goes over well with those who like to see everything in terms of black and white.
The data is EVERY fucking country. You think they all popped up out of nowhere with big governments??
Science isn't a democracy. I don't care for a second what "99% of scientists" believe. I care whether the data holds up. Currently, it seems the science is wishy-washy for both sides and the scientists themselves know that.
HarveyJ
He is - THE CACTUS!
Sorry, but for some of the smartest people I know (and I'm including everyone on both sides here), a lot of you are fucking morons.
Why?
Because anyone that gets their scientific information from a mainsteam media news source, on either side of the debate and believes what's being presented is in any way accurate, is a fucking moron.
FOX? You're a moron. CNN? You're a moron. ABC? You're a moron. BBC? Go read page 3. NPR? You're a socialist moron. NewScientist? Ok, we're getting somewhere now.
Primary fucking sources, people!
When you're getting your scientific information directly from the university and/or research center studies (note the plural), and it has been peer reviewed... Then you can pretend you're well researched.
In the meantime, here are some solid facts:
Why?
Because anyone that gets their scientific information from a mainsteam media news source, on either side of the debate and believes what's being presented is in any way accurate, is a fucking moron.
FOX? You're a moron. CNN? You're a moron. ABC? You're a moron. BBC? Go read page 3. NPR? You're a socialist moron. NewScientist? Ok, we're getting somewhere now.
Primary fucking sources, people!
When you're getting your scientific information directly from the university and/or research center studies (note the plural), and it has been peer reviewed... Then you can pretend you're well researched.
In the meantime, here are some solid facts:
- Climate shift is happening. Why is yet to be determined. Coming up with solutions about how to deal with it is better than going about business as usual.
- "Global Warming" was a misnomer originally bandied about by mainstream media, not scientists. Scientists still talk about "climate change" in most academic literature.
Even still, "Global Warming" technically refers to sea temperatures, not air or ground. Anyone that thinks big snow falls means global warming's not happening... fucking moron. - Even if global warming isn't man made, there are several other good arguments about why we should move to clean energy sources: #1 being the carginogenic compounds spewed into the air by burning fossil fuels.
- Sea water that releases more energy means that it is agitated (i.e. warmer), meaning less polar ice, meaning higher sea levels as the turns back into water, meaning swamped coastal settlements + altered weather patterns + more extreme storms, meaning substantially more property damage and loss of life.
Sounds like a great reason to attempt to mitigate the effects, man made or not. - Everyone involved in this debate has one agenda or another, but the fact remains if the climate change theorists are correct, and the environment is fucked, you can kiss your sweet arse goodbye because selling Acai pills won't be possible when there's no place left that's able to cultivate them.
This subject, seems to have gotten quite the kick out of Wickedfire. Is it really that big of a deal?
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.
Which is why I was the first to post the actual data and the first to actually use the scientist's name. (although I joined in the bashing)
However, I still believe that it's unfortunate that this data has to be presented to Americans though Glenn Beck's show.
Personally I don't like him. If you enjoy his show or not, either way he is a polarizing figure and the chances of anyone looking at the data go down when they are presented by someone such as him. On top of that the channel itself, FOX, is a partisan news source.
It would have been better to just post the data straight from the source to begin with.
Anyway, I think we should definitely just assume climate change is real.
Oil companies don't factor in externalities such as: the cost to the environment, people's health, anything that doesn't affect their bottom line is simply an "externality". It's external to their worries. This whole AGW issue FORCES them to care about such things something that in a pure capitalist scenario is outside of their worry.
Obviously, Republicans want to protect big business (none of us here are big business even if you want to think you are) interests thus ally themselves with the AGW is wrong side. They don't want anything forced on them and their interests which is perfectly legitimate.
Democrats ally themselves more with the people's voice (vs. big business) thus are concerned about every externality that the Republicans and their business allies don't worry about by definition.
I would argue that EVERYONE should be worried since it's the fucking planet and it's unfortunate that this issue is dividing.
I think all this green tech that is coming out of this is awesome. Electric cars will be sweet, but we need SOLAR ultimately for the electricity.
It's how nature does it, it's how we should do it.
And solar is something Republicans/New Big Business can capitalize the fuck out of and I'll be proud to be an American! :usa: (and still be an Independent)
Get going BIG BUSINESS!
Check this vid out: (ok maybe not it's long)
Solar Cells at the Cusp with Dr. Richard Swanson
He predicts within 20 years solar will power 40% of our energy needs (stock investment anyone?).
Also, I think if carbon credits is the ONLY way to get business motivated to go green then do it. ( I have no idea if it's the only way ) and if the money goes to the bottom billion for some reason ( which I'm just now learning ) then let's insure they use it properly.
I would hope that most scientists wouldn't say they were 90% certain of something that they thought was wishy-washy. If we define "the science" as stuff that gets published in journals, then the skeptic "side" doesn't really offer much to look at in the first place.
We can't afford to tackle this issue at the moment. We are in the worst economic turndown since the great depression. Let's at least get back on solid footing before we start taxing business for the carbon they use. Why do we want to pass legislation that will skyrocket energy cost for the average American and small business when our economy is so weak?
I am all for cleaner energy and protecting our environment but how are the millions of Americans unemployed and on food stamps going to afford a 40k electric car or a $500 a month electric bill. Lets take care of the pressing issue of a fucked U.S. economy before we take on the issues of global warming.
I am all for cleaner energy and protecting our environment but how are the millions of Americans unemployed and on food stamps going to afford a 40k electric car or a $500 a month electric bill. Lets take care of the pressing issue of a fucked U.S. economy before we take on the issues of global warming.
Only sheeple believe this line of crap. I don't care if you live in a state that's red or blue, big business is always king.
I love you too, sweetie! Wait...what? You're Jesse like in 'Jessica' right?
(in that case, show us your boobies)
Unfortunately, we have to do alot of work and research when getting news from major media outlets. You cannot take anything u get from any of them as truth without trying to find what part of the story is being left out, this is a business model they ALL follow, its not about right and left, its just how the model works, yeah its fucked up -- but then were getting back to the lesser of two evils argument deal, which is again a circle jerk going nowhere fast. I have a close friend that works at the cnn news desk here in atlanta, compiling and finding all the news and how they go about what they are going to say and how they are going to say it based on algorithms and systems they developed that are fueled by viewers and ad dollars. She worked there when Beck worked there and spoke with him regularly and there conversations are quite revealing, i wont go into details to get ppl riled up but bottom line if u want the most objective source of news possible uv just got to go out and get the story from multiple sources and consider it then. Thats about the best we can do
It isn't. Lots of businesses have gone green without carbon credits. Businesses respond to the demands of their customers. Those who do not, go broke. Those who do flourish. This has been going on for centuries. That is how a market works.
That is also why when you go to countries with central planning and limited markets, they have less product differentiation (no diet, eco-friendly, low sodium brands), and constant shortages.
Carbon credits are simply a new form of currency. The UN would like to see them as the world's reserve currency, which banks would then use as the foundation of every country's monetary system. That would make the UN/IMF/World Bank cartel very powerful as the global ssuers of the money (unelected bureaucrats), and it would make the banks which could trade in this exclusive currency no longer need to rely on deposits from individuals and small businesses in order to expand their balance sheets.
Carbon credits are strictly monopoly paper money which can be used in the derivatives trade. There are two classes of people who want carbon credits. The people for whom it will make politically powerful, and the people for whom it will make rich.
All taxes are regressive. The little guy gets to pay for it all. As usual.
As marketers (well some of us anyway), you all know that a tax on you, is a tax on the buyer, because you will demand more money in whatever you do, to pay the tax hit as your revenues go up. Taxes on business ALWAYS lead to higher, not lower prices. The lowest priced goods, have the least amount of tax on them. The little guy always takes it in the ass.
I don't know why you have a love affair with big business, but how is what I said untrue?
Working families vs big business... it's the classic dichotomy...
I guess you think working families are all sheeple?
Sure big business is king which is why the Democrats give the people/working families voice against them.
How is that crap? Is it crap because people think they have a chance at all? Why is it crap?
Or is it crap because the whole externality argument is a lie? (it's not)
Externality - Wikipedia From wikipedia: "Global warming has been ranked as the #1 externality of all economic activity, in the magnitude of potential harms and yet remains unmitigated." - no citation but I'm sheeple enough to just go ahead and believe it
