• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Is Global Warming the most misunderstood topic in politics?

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Rainsford said:
And conversely, there is absolutely NO economic incentive to attack man-made global warming, right? The amount of money made by fossil fuel industries absolutely dwarfs the "green" energy field, yet you're arguing that the economic incentive lies in proving man-made global warming CORRECT?

There is a lot of economic and political bullshit on both sides, I would agree with that. But the SCIENCE is almost entirely one sided, and we're a bunch of idiots if that's not what we're paying attention to.
Click to expand...

Many of the fossil fuel companies such as BP and Chevron have cleaned up financially by expanding into the solar market and picking up large government subsidies and incentives.
 
Whiskey16 said:
Evidence to condemn you as such is from your proclamation against current agriculture in Greenland and challenging any to one prove you wrong. You ignored the rebuttal and prove to treat this discussion as your echo chamber. :thumbsdown:
Click to expand...

Temperatures in western Greenland have been declining for 80 years.http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/g...py?id=431042500000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1 I'll grant you I don't know of the southern tip but a quote you made caught my attention.

But a one-degree Celsius rise in the temperature of the North Atlantic
Click to expand...

I'll respond by pointing out the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation.

Still, you've one article on their meager attempts to farm. Congratulations, though I suspect that did not describe the sort of farming that sustained and kept the vikings alive. I'll point out that's from 2007, the height of warmth there the past 20 years. Coincidentally just before the PDO turned cold. They wouldn't be doing so well now.

Feel free to provide updates on their farming, I'd love to show it to around to others as an in their face. While what you provided is not scientific, it's empirical nonetheless.

Wouldn't they have had good results in 2010, the 'warmest year ever'?
 
Rainsford said:
A natural cycle does not preclude the possibility of man-made effects on the climate. You are not a climate scientist, stop pretending to be one.
Click to expand...

Seems that Dr, Curry (who is a climate scientist) has a very timely response to this subject on her blog today.
on-the-dangerous-naivete-of-uncritical-acceptance-of-scientific-consensus

http://judithcurry.com/2012/01/02/o...acceptance-of-scientific-consensus/#more-6399


"JC comment: Bertrand Russell’s statement to me defines rational skepticism. Political motivation for establishing a scientific consensus associated with a policy prescription, such as occurred in the context of the UNFCCC/IPCC, seems to me to provide grounds for non-experts to question the consensus.

Put in this light, engaging in the climate blogosphere, challenging the consensus and demanding accountability is part of our individual attempts to draw our own intelligent conclusions and do so responsibly."

worth a read if you're interested in the subject
 
monovillage said:
Seems that Dr, Curry (who is a climate scientist) has a very timely response to this subject on her blog today.
on-the-dangerous-naivete-of-uncritical-acceptance-of-scientific-consensus

http://judithcurry.com/2012/01/02/o...acceptance-of-scientific-consensus/#more-6399

worth a read if you're interested in the subject
Click to expand...

Thanks. Very liberating text.

"nevertheless he is inclined to trust the conclusions of the scientific consensus and support the urgent and coercive actions of the state to curb the carbon dioxide emissions of much of the industrialized world which would certainly lead to a catastrophic collapse of the global economy and a massive transfer of wealth into the hands of a very small club of billionaires who control most of the still highly ineffective, inefficient (and incidentally, environmentally destructive) “green jobs” technologies, all on the chance that anthropogenic global warmingmight be happening, and the even smaller chance that such drastic action might save us."
Click to expand...

My feelings exactly.
 
monovillage said:
I'm not surprised.
Click to expand...

You probably know me less than the subject itself, but I've challenged myself greatly on the entire paradigm. There isn't much incorruptible science left and far too many profiteers. I admire anyone who wants an entire reboot with weeding shears in hand.
 
Last edited:
Well it was 50 degrees and dry in the midwest last week. 5 below is usually more like it, and with 4 foot of snow on top of that.
At this rate, the trees and grass should be green come Valentines day, and I can get back to sunning at the beach. 5 full months early!!!
WOOT! 😀

But kidding aside... I predict this Spring/Summer we will see massive droughts nation wide. Worse than ever. Nation wide.
For the last 20 years, we have seen massive un-natural flooding in the country. Town after town washed away. Seen this every night on the news. People stranded on roof tops waiting for rescue.
Why all the rain?
Well, if the polar ice caps were actually melting as much as it was claimed, that might be the reason. With all that extra moisture was in the air, moving down cross the nation, causing massive flooding in the mid to upper part of the nation, year after year.

But now... just maybe that source of moisture has ended.
The melting has taken place, and there is no more to melt?
At least not like we've seen in the last 20 years.
So what next? Massive droughts. No crops, no water in the rivers, no natural supply of water.
I don't know... but thats my theory.
Massive nation wide drought, beginning this Spring and Summer 2012.
If I'm right, you heard it here first.
 
Actually sportage weather has been no worse and no better then it has ever been in the U.S. Here's an article by Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. That discusses a recent N.Y. Times article. Lots of links to NOAA and other places for more information.

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/12/worst-nyt-story-on-climate-ever.html

"The article does not explain that $1 billion in 2011 is about the same as $400 million in 1980 (XLS). Nor does it explain that a $50 billion total in losses for 2011 is about exactly the same as the total in 1980, after adjusting for inflation -- however, as a proportion of the overall economy those 1980 losses were 250% larger than those experienced in 2011. That is, the equivalent 1980 losses in 2011 would be $125 billion (XLS). The article completely ignores relevant peer-reviewed research on the subject (see here also)."
 
Originally Posted by IGBT View Post
Hansen, Mann and the rest of the hockey team's fraud and hoax is a very profitable and lucrative business enterprise disguised as research. Their little faux pas only cost US taxpayers $106.7 billion dollars from 2003-2010 which doesn’t include an additional $79 billion spent on climate change technology research, tax breaks for “green energy, foreign aid to address “climate problems”; another 16.1 billion since 1993 in federal revenue losses due to “green energy” subsidies; or still another $26 billion earmarked for climate change programs and related activities in the 2009 “Stimulus Bill”. – Source – US Government Accounting Office (GAO); compiled by Forbes

Mann has spent $1 million to date in legal fees trying to keep ATI from getting access to his emails even though he supposedly didn’t do anything wrong.

Rainsford said:
And conversely, there is absolutely NO economic incentive to attack man-made global warming, right? The amount of money made by fossil fuel industries absolutely dwarfs the "green" energy field, yet you're arguing that the economic incentive lies in proving man-made global warming CORRECT?

There is a lot of economic and political bullshit on both sides, I would agree with that. But the SCIENCE is almost entirely one sided, and we're a bunch of idiots if that's not what we're paying attention to.
Click to expand...


your twisting in the wind excuse hardly justifies throwing billions on top of billions of tax payer dollars into the shitter to facilitate a hoax and fraud.
 
Last edited:
Rainsford said:
This is basically what I was going to say. I don't think Global Warming is "misunderstood", I think it's the worst example of public debate not reflecting scientific understanding since "intelligent design".

We're talking about a scientific issue where the vast majority of experts and published, peer reviewed papers support a particular point of view. Yet random people with NO expertise, credentials or data to back them up (monovillage, spidey, Bill O'Reilly, etc) have absolutely no problem strenuously asserting a different viewpoint. And not just the opinion pieces either...they often lean on "scientific" arguments that are unproven or, more often, specifically disproven (it took only a handful of posts before someone brought up the "natural cycles" faux-scientific argument).

The problem with the global warming debate isn't the content, it's the form of the debate. Scientists can be wrong, scientific consensus can be disproven. But that's only going to come from better science, if it's out there, not random folks with a political axe to grind.
Click to expand...
But it's a political debate because those pushing CAGW made it so by using it as a thinly veiled attempt to gain political power. The problem is that those pushing CAGW have destroyed their credibility.

Mann et al publish a hockey stick graph of global temperatures that anyone with the slightest knowledge of history knows is false. If your theory requires denying the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period, throw it to the ground. Roughly. For it is shit.

Mainstream CAGW advocates then defend this graph, even after it becomes known that his own proxies don't work where they can be verified, because it has become essential to the science that it be true. The concept that a proxy is invalid where it can be verified but can be assumed to be valid where it cannot be verified is the very antithesis of science.

Mainstream CAGW advocates defend the scientists who are caught scheming to have their work reviewed only by those in agreement. That is no more peer review than allowing only your supporters to speak is free speech.

CAGW advocates point to any unseasonably warm weather as evidence of CAGW. CAGW advocates point to any unseasonably cool weather as evidence of CAGW. CAGW advocates point to any abnormally violent storm seasons as evidence of CAGW. CAGW advocates point to any abnormally mild storm seasons as evidence of CAGW. We even have CAGW advocates proposing that global warming will cause another ice age. If any possible behavior proves your theory, then none of it proves your theory, because no possible behavior can disprove your theory.

CAGW advocates don't know why previous cycles of warmth or cold occurred. CAGW advocates claim to know that whatever caused those previous cycles of warmth or cold isn't occurring now.

CAGW advocates use very complicated models to match previous recorded climatic conditions, thus proving those models accurate. CAGW advocates disregard that those very complicated models do not accurately predict future conditions in any verifiable time frame.

CAGW advocates adjust satellite temperature measurements to match the theory and then use the adjusted measurements to "prove" the theory. Even after being caught.

CAGW advocates try their best to make sure that any scientist who does not toe the official line does not work. Again, this is the very antithesis of science, the very behavior that supposedly the Church engages in unless Science protects us.

Very few of us, even those of us with engineering or scientific backgrounds, can really understand all the science involved. However, every one of us understands credibility, how it is earned and how it is squandered. To allow someone to control society - or as the CAGW advocates are aiming, the whole of civilization - requires not only that they be incredibly smart and learned, but also that they be incredibly trustworthy. CAGW advocates in almost every way we can see and understand seem not particularly smart and certainly not at all trustworthy. Why on Earth would we want to turn over control of civilization to a group of people who don't seem particularly intelligent and certainly aren't trustworthy just because they have doctorates and really, really want it?
 
werepossum said:
But it's a political debate because those pushing CAGW made it so by using it as a thinly veiled attempt to gain political power. The problem is that those pushing CAGW have destroyed their credibility.

Mann et al publish a hockey stick graph of global temperatures that anyone with the slightest knowledge of history knows is false. If your theory requires denying the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period, throw it to the ground. Roughly. For it is shit.

Mainstream CAGW advocates then defend this graph, even after it becomes known that his own proxies don't work where they can be verified, because it has become essential to the science that it be true. The concept that a proxy is invalid where it can be verified but can be assumed to be valid where it cannot be verified is the very antithesis of science.

Mainstream CAGW advocates defend the scientists who are caught scheming to have their work reviewed only by those in agreement. That is no more peer review than allowing only your supporters to speak is free speech.

CAGW advocates point to any unseasonably warm weather as evidence of CAGW. CAGW advocates point to any unseasonably cool weather as evidence of CAGW. CAGW advocates point to any abnormally violent storm seasons as evidence of CAGW. CAGW advocates point to any abnormally mild storm seasons as evidence of CAGW. We even have CAGW advocates proposing that global warming will cause another ice age. If any possible behavior proves your theory, then none of it proves your theory, because no possible behavior can disprove your theory.

CAGW advocates don't know why previous cycles of warmth or cold occurred. CAGW advocates claim to know that whatever caused those previous cycles of warmth or cold isn't occurring now.

CAGW advocates use very complicated models to match previous recorded climatic conditions, thus proving those models accurate. CAGW advocates disregard that those very complicated models do not accurately predict future conditions in any verifiable time frame.

CAGW advocates adjust satellite temperature measurements to match the theory and then use the adjusted measurements to "prove" the theory. Even after being caught.

CAGW advocates try their best to make sure that any scientist who does not toe the official line does not work. Again, this is the very antithesis of science, the very behavior that supposedly the Church engages in unless Science protects us.

Very few of us, even those of us with engineering or scientific backgrounds, can really understand all the science involved. However, every one of us understands credibility, how it is earned and how it is squandered. To allow someone to control society - or as the CAGW advocates are aiming, the whole of civilization - requires not only that they be incredibly smart and learned, but also that they be incredibly trustworthy. CAGW advocates in almost every way we can see and understand seem not particularly smart and certainly not at all trustworthy. Why on Earth would we want to turn over control of civilization to a group of people who don't seem particularly intelligent and certainly aren't trustworthy just because they have doctorates and really, really want it?
Click to expand...

Your Tinfoil's wrapped too tight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top