Global warming--not convinced

[ELF]

Originally Posted by bowtieguy

brilliant! sorry to drag you into this, but it's nice to see a fellow skeptic that's not afraid to use sarcasm. be careful though, they'll call you insane!

I do believe that we humans are changing/ affecting the climate to some degree. But we probably won't know how much is us and how much is natural, until its too late.

[skewbe]

bowtie?

canadafreepress.com is funded by exxon, besides being of zero scientific value.

and did you mean to exclude the rest of the world in your blessing?!?

[cfg83]

bowtieguy -

Originally Posted by bowtieguy

correct again. my thread. YOUR opportunity to present evidence of GW beyond politics and money(funded research). failure! but take heart. if someone were to try to convince me that mankind has nothing to do with GW(if it exists), wouldn't buy it either. also, Telco says "E. taxes." what about "F. Bush." ...

You're not paying attention. That was me (being sarcastic).

Here's lots of brain food in no particular order, some even dissenting.

BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686

Peer Review: A Necessary But Not Sufficient Condition
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=109

The truth about global warming
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...obewarm11.html

The Coming Meltdown
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18616

Wikipedia:Scientific peer review/Global Warming (The Crichton argument )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...Global_Warming

Essay Claiming 'Scientific Consensus' for Global Warming is Ridiculed
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.as...20041207a.html

Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil?s Tobacco-like Disinformation Campaign on Global Warming Science
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_rel...g-tobacco.html

(being lazy, this is a repost of URLs I posted here http://www.gassavers.org/showpost.ph...3&postcount=54)

CarloSW2

[trebuchet03]

Originally Posted by omgwtfbyobbq

Jejejejeje. The only problem with that angle is it can be used with almost anything. Because you can be influenced by money, there are many issues(including GW) that can be "spun" to that advantage..

If you really think GW is BS, why not address pro-GW peer reviewed papers in a coherent matter? If it is indeed being spun around for profit, the papers published on it will not pass muster. Unfortunately I'm afraid you'll find that even if every scientist alive agreed GW was a problem that needed to be addressed ASAP, they still wouldn't let anything peer reviewed get past 'em if it was grossly inaccurate.

Bingo! We have a winner. The peer review process is brutal. It's difficult to establish your name as a credible source - but oh so easy to utterly destroy it. If it ever becomes evident that money is your driving power as a member of academia, making publications - you're abruptly tossed away.

I mean really, if the ultimate driving force is money - they'd actually cook something up that didn't come with extra baggage. They're not stupid. Appropriate citations include a volume/journal number, page range, etc.

I'm disappointed when, instead of attacking the theory, academia itself is hit.

[Telco]

Originally Posted by skewbe

I dare say that given your current condition, there is no amount of words that could convince you of environmental change, evolution, earth is round, or any other "best guesses" that we have to work with based on the existing evidence.

Perhaps I was foolish to try.

Gee, you sound exactly like George Bush. "Either you are for me or against me." You are just more wordy about it that 'ol W, who I voted for in 2000 and 2004. Not because he was the best man for the job, but because he was the best selection on the ballot. And the way the Democratic Party is not learning from its mistakes and pandering to the fringes again, it's looking like another Republican vote for Pres from this card carrying Democrat.

That is, of course, unless someone worthwhile runs on the Independent ticket.

[Telco]

Originally Posted by jharbert

Global warming is the wrong topic. There are far too many skeptics whose minds will never be changed.

Instead, we should be talking about the cause: pollution. Everyone can agree that pollution is a bad thing. Rivers poisoned by coal mining runoff so badly that nothing can live in them. DDT showing up in mother's breast milk. Petroleum-based fertilizers that actually strip soils of their nutrients. These are easy to show and prove, and it's easy to demonstrate alternatives to prevent these problems.

Fix pollution and you fix global warming, with nearly everyone's support.

X2. Consider Al Gore, the environmentalist poster child, who is a gross polluter who puts his finances and personal comfort ahead of global warming. He owns a zinc mine that is constantly being fined by the EPA for pollution. It goes on to discuss Gore's connections to the (say it ain't so!!!) petroleum industry. He also has connections to the tobacco industry,, whom he both lobbied against and accepted annual payments from, even after his own sister died of lung cancer caused by smoking. Then there's "Mr Green's" own energy usage. More energy per month than the average American uses per year? And remember that "average American" is that slothful, energy wasting hog that thinks electricity magically appears out of thin air. The average American is the one who sits in front of the fridge with the door open for 10 minutes trying to decide which soda he wants, leaves his engine idling for 30-45 minutes at a time to keep the AC going, leaves the front door open when unloading groceries, ect. Only after heavy exposure to his hypocritical ways did he... increase consumption. Yes, he added a few solar panels and started using a few CFLs, but still started using more juice.

When it's people like Al Gore who are pushing global warming, is it any wonder people doubt it?

[skewbe]

This message has been brought to you by your dear friends at exxon

[Telco]

Originally Posted by skewbe

This message has been brought to you by your dear friends at exxon

Oh, sure. Either I agree with you or I work for Exxon. Excellent argument! I bow to your superior debating skills! Hey, I also think the sky is blue, who else am I getting a check from?

Whether I believe global warming is indeed shoals along the shore which I can't see, or just a possibility that is being milked for money (and really, do ALL scientists care if they are published in some academic journal, or might some of them feel a paycheck is more important? Gasp, perish the thought!) does it really matter? Cleaning the place up and emitting less affects REAL problems which used to be the greenie lefty hobby horse, pollution. Pollution is a PROVEN problem, does that mean that it is no longer a valid motivator? The same fixes also have been stated as being the "cure all and end all" of global warming. Does it really matter if my motivation to switch from incandescents to CFLs and later to LEDs is to save money, cut pollution or end global warming? Regardless of what the motivator is, the effect will be the same. Or are you saying that it has extra effect if my motivation is global warming, much like a NoS sticker on a ricer is worth an extra 50HP?

My, you are a dogmatic fellow. I'm surprised you aren't hunting me down with frothing mouth to mount my body on a pole as a warning to future global warming doubters.

[skewbe]

The preceeding bit of mouth foaming ranting and name calling brought to you by telco.

[Telco]

Originally Posted by skewbe

The preceeding bit of mouth foaming ranting and name calling brought to you by telco.

Oh, so now it's foaming at the mouth and ranting if you are disagreed with. I see. I am either in total agreement with you or a ranting nutjob, there is no middle ground. No use in discussing this anymore, I'll just leave you to worship your Global Warming God, Al Gore. Obviously you see no value in other viewpoints than your own.

Whether someone believes in global warming or not should not be important, if his actions towards another cause amount to the same thing.