Global Warming:The Politics and Science of Fear

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by madanthonywayne, May 13, 2007.

  1. psikeyhackr Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,020
    So if there is a consensus among scientists that the Earth orbits the Sun then it should be suspect because there is a consensus? A consensus doesn't necessarily mean something is true but there may be a consensus because the evidence has become too overwhelming for the somewhat dumb scientists to doubt. The extremely dumb scientists will never figure out the obvious.

    This still leaves the problem of Global Dimming.

    Global Dimming - BBC Horizon 2005
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2058273530743771382
    Transcript
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_trans.shtml

    psik
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. madanthonywayne Morning in America Staff Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    Please. He predicted these things in the first world. Third world countries have always endured starvation and genocide. Predicting it will continue is no great feat. And the Soviet Union collapsed for political reasons, not for lack of natural resources.

    Ehrlich was so far off he's a joke.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,089
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,272
    Third world countries have not "always endured" events like the Rwandan massacre, or the recent Sudan and Somalia breakdowns, or what happened in Bangladesh right on cue. Labeling the specific areas of famine, massacre, and brutal war ten or twenty years in advance is not all that easy. Ehrlich was reasonably accurate in this - if he had predicted "political consequences" instead of passive starvation, as the more sober analysts of population bomb effects did at the time, he would have looked prescient.

    And of course the Soviets empire broke up over "political issues" - aside from alarmists like Ehrlich, who expects people to just sit by and watch their children starve?

    The consequences of the CO2 driven climate change will show up as "political issues" as well, without a doubt. Water rights, in the American West, for example.
     
  8. madanthonywayne Morning in America Staff Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    But the starvation was wholely a result of a failed political system (communism), not due to any lack of natural resources. Even today, the former Soviet Union is rich in natural resources and could be a wealthy nation if they'd get their act together.
     
  9. sandy Banned Banned

    Messages:
    7,926
  10. D H Some other guy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,257
    Reported. You have been told to stop this trolling. Individual instances of freak weather have little to do with global warming.
     
  11. Pez11 Just visiting Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    66
    ....But it has a lot to do with simple minded linear thinking.
     
  12. sandy Banned Banned

    Messages:
    7,926
    This is not trolling. I didn't say anything. I just posted a story about a snowstorm. Is global warming your new religion? Are you that convinced it's real that you won't even consider an opposing view? What I post is exactly what the non-believers are using for their arguments. I don't see other people in other threads being shut down for opposing views. You have no proof that what I'm saying is not proof of MY argument. Some of the most respected names in science do not believe in global warming. And many are using arguments just like mine to defend their positions.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. pjdude1219 screw watergate i want to know about zaragate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,682
    well the snow storm can be considered evidence for glabal warming as it evidence of global weather patearns being thrown more and more of balance. in fact one of the more likely end results of global warming is an ice age. this happens due to try to balence things out it ends up pushing to the other extreme
     
  14. kmguru Staff Member

    Messages:
    11,757
  15. Smellsniffsniff Gravitomagnetism Heats the Sun Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    364

    I don't know about twenty feet, cause we don't use the measurement feet in our country. But I know the maximum sea and ocean level increase is 7 meters. The way I understand it there won't be a fancy New York, and to be quite honest with you we can't do anything about it cause the problem smelled dead before we understood what we were doing.
     
  16. madanthonywayne Morning in America Staff Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    On the off chance the sea does rise a lot, we build a dike. Big deal. Building dikes would cost a small fraction of what reducing our CO2 output would
     
  17. River Ape Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,100
    I am not altogether clear why Global Dimming would have, as claimed, a cooling effect on the climate - offsetting Global Warming.

    The presence of particles in the atmosphere would reduce the amount of sunlight (and heat) reaching the Earth's surface -- but in intercepting the sunlight would not the atmosphere itself be warmed? I would tend to expect that particulate matter would ADD to the greenhouse effect rather than reduce it. I am not convinced that dimming would result in more of the sun's energy being reflected back into space. Always treat the BBC with the utmost suspicion!
     
  18. Smellsniffsniff Gravitomagnetism Heats the Sun Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    364

    Yes a 7 meters high dike. You'll be done in just about time for the next ice age.
     
  19. D H Some other guy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,257
    You posted your silly story about a snowstorm in a thread on global warming. If this silly story has nothing to do with the validity of global warming, then why did you post it here? To up your post count, or to try to refute global warming? You are trolling, pure and simple.

    That the global mean temperature is increasing is a fact. Nobody with any credence debates this fact. This includes those who credibly doubt whether humans are the cause of global warming, those who doubt we can do anything about global warming, and those who doubt that we should do anything about it. If you want to debate global warming, do so credibly. Don't mouth the incredibly stupid arguments made by Rush and Hannity.

    By way of analogy, consider gambling. Casino profits are predicated on averages. A big winner at the roulette wheel does not disprove the fact that casinos are statiscally the big winners when it comes to gambling. Similarly, a freak snowstorm does not disprove the fact of global warming.

    Another false argument you have used against global warming is to recall the 1970s, where some claimed that humanity is driving the climate into an ice age. This is an ad hominen attack. I could use the same logic to argue that your beloved religion is false. Religious charlatans have made many, many false prophecies. These charlatans do not disprove Christianity any more than the statements by environmental whackos disprove global warming.

    Find one who uses freak snowstorms and statements by 1970s whackos. You recently posted a news story about Griffin's interview on NPR. Read that interview. He did not debate whether global warming is occurring. He did debate whether we should do something about it.

    If you read my posts, you would see that I am not in the "we must stop global warming now" crowd. I am in the "I don't like bad science" crowd. You get my goat not because you are challenging my beliefs but because you are parrotting the incredibly stupid arguments posed by Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. There are credible arguments against anthropegenic global warming. Rush's and Sean's are not among those arguments.

    One particular freak incident of weather does not prove global warming any more than it disproves it. This argument gets my gall, too. With this argument, any weather event proves that global warming is real. The one constant about the weather is that it is inconstant.
     
  20. Smellsniffsniff Gravitomagnetism Heats the Sun Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    364
    It's 22:25 here in sweden and the temperature is now 19 degrees celcius
    The entire earth is very big, don't you think? So you would think that the temperature would in everage, in average over a couple of years at the same time of year, be constant.

    It's 3.5 degrees hotter.
     
  21. sandy Banned Banned

    Messages:
    7,926
    I don't even listen to Rush or Hannity. I believe global warming is a farce. So do many scientists. So do most Americans. When I post a story about freak cold/snow, it is further proof of my argument. Just because you don't agree with me doesn't mean I don't have the right to my opinion. Reporting my post was childish and immature. You're like a high school bully who won't argue/discuss/debate with a woman. You just try to get her to shut up.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,125
    Then, it is merely something you believe in because 'many scientists' and 'most Americans' believe. You don't really understand the details, right?

    Or, it's simply a freak cold/snow, adding nothing to your argument.
     
  23. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    No, Sandy, that's not the point at all. I for one, don't care if you are man, woman, neuter or half-and-half.

    What IS the point is that you don't believe in climate change and you've continually been posting about these unusual weather events BECAUSE of that.

    And the problem is that you don't understand overall averages vs some anomaly. Consider this, if you will. There are calves born with two heads or five legs. It happens every once in a while. And there are human babies born with six fingers on one hand or eleven toes on their feet. And there are other oddities as well.

    But that does NOT change the fact that on the average most are still born with the right number of everything. If you could just wrap your mind around that one little piece of logic you would understand why everyone is on your case about reporting these freakish bit of weather events. On the average, they are no proof of anything!
     

Share This Page