YAGWT - Peer reviewed literature ignored by GW believers

[CADsortaGUY]

Challenge to Scientific Consensus on Global Warming: Analysis Finds Hundreds of Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Man-Made Global Warming Fears

more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance.

But I thought that there was "consensus"? Or is that "consensus since we ignored what didn't fit our religion"? I knew there was going to come a day like this where someone would compile the science that the GW faithful were ignoring and said didn't exist. Now granted, this doesn't mean GW doesn't exist(I've never stated that) but it does destroy the attempts to say MMGW is "fact". There is much more research to be done before one can say that this correlation = causation but we are VERY far from that.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

don't worry...


there will be another bogeyman under the bed. Global Warming hysteria was all the rage when Bush wasn't doing anything or actively opposing going along. Next President it won't be an issue unless its another Republican.

 

[homercles337]

I take it neither of the posters here understand science or statistics. Every peer-reviewed paper ever written has a discussion section in which the authors speculate. Im sure it was no problem at all to find this many papers that speculate on these things. Hint: speculation is not conclusion. Im surprised they found so few papers. Probabilistically im sure there are way more than this. I wonder if they were concerned about a close investigation into their "methods." If cad of shityva would like to point me to the full methods of their "research" i would appreciate it.

Also, would it behoove the both of you to do a little research? This was a press release to promote a book written by Hudson Institute "scientists" funded by a Hudson Institute board member. If youre curious, this institute is well known for challenging well documented "left-wing" (read as not supporting some right-wing agenda) scientific conclusions.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: homercles337
[ ... ]
Also, would it behoove the both of you to do a little research? This was a press release to promote a book written by Hudson Institute "scientists" funded by a Hudson Institute board member. If youre curious, this institute is well known for challenging well documented "left-wing" (read as not supporting some right-wing agenda) scientific conclusions.

Exactly. This "article" comes from PR Newswire. PR Newswire is NOT a news service like Associated Press. It is a press release service, generally used by corporate marketing departments who want to sell something, e.g. an anti-climate change book. That doesn't prove their study is junk, of course, but it certainly gives it no credibility. Without seeing their study peer-reviewed, it is nothing more than two guys' opinions.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: homercles337
I take it neither of the posters here understand science or statistics. Every peer-reviewed paper ever written has a discussion section in which the authors speculate. Im sure it was no problem at all to find this many papers that speculate on these things. Hint: speculation is not conclusion. Im surprised they found so few papers. Probabilistically im sure there are way more than this. I wonder if they were concerned about a close investigation into their "methods." If cad of shityva would like to point me to the full methods of their "research" i would appreciate it.

Also, would it behoove the both of you to do a little research? This was a press release to promote a book written by Hudson Institute "scientists" funded by a Hudson Institute board member. If youre curious, this institute is well known for challenging well documented "left-wing" (read as not supporting some right-wing agenda) scientific conclusions.

Uhhh... you obviously didn't read my post if you think I need to prove anything or do "research". The MMGW faithful always seem to ask for peer reviewed items - well it looks like it really does exist no matter how much the MMGW faithful wish to ignore it. Also the "methods" and "research" is just as questionable on your MMGW side so using that against this doesn't help your little cause.

As to your attempted shooting of the messenger in this case you must have forgotten to read there were no corporate contributions. You may not like Hudson but I may not like some leftwing sponsor who may not have corporate monies(or the like) who does MMGW "research".

The point of all this is that there isn't really a "consensus" and MMGW is not "FACT" or "indisputable", nor is there a lack of peer reviewed literature that calls MMGW into question.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: homercles337
[ ... ]
Also, would it behoove the both of you to do a little research? This was a press release to promote a book written by Hudson Institute "scientists" funded by a Hudson Institute board member. If youre curious, this institute is well known for challenging well documented "left-wing" (read as not supporting some right-wing agenda) scientific conclusions.

Exactly. This "article" comes from PR Newswire. PR Newswire is NOT a news service like Associated Press. It is a press release service, generally used by corporate marketing departments who want to sell something, e.g. an anti-climate change book. That doesn't prove their study is junk, of course, but it certainly gives it no credibility. Without seeing their study peer-reviewed, it is nothing more than two guys' opinions.

Ooops, forgot to actually read it? Figures.

Hint: This isn't about 2 guys. 😉
Hint 2: It isn't a "anti-climate change" book

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: homercles337
[ ... ]
Also, would it behoove the both of you to do a little research? This was a press release to promote a book written by Hudson Institute "scientists" funded by a Hudson Institute board member. If youre curious, this institute is well known for challenging well documented "left-wing" (read as not supporting some right-wing agenda) scientific conclusions.

Exactly. This "article" comes from PR Newswire. PR Newswire is NOT a news service like Associated Press. It is a press release service, generally used by corporate marketing departments who want to sell something, e.g. an anti-climate change book. That doesn't prove their study is junk, of course, but it certainly gives it no credibility. Without seeing their study peer-reviewed, it is nothing more than two guys' opinions.

Ooops, forgot to actually read it? Figures.

Hint: This isn't about 2 guys. 😉
Hint 2: It isn't a "anti-climate change" book

/sigh

Cad, don't be dumb. It is about two guys, two guys who wrote a book claiming to have studied peer-reviewed science literature and finding 500 examples of reports they claim "refute at least one aspect of ... global warming scares."

As far as your second "point" is concerned, I can only assume you're set to pounce on an asinine semantics diversion, namely that I simplified my response by paraphrasing the subject of the book they're hawking in this press release. (Their premise appears to be that the current global warming is part of a natural cycle and not influenced by man.) If so, can it. It's not material to my point re. the nature of your article and the credibility of their study. If that's not your point, please enlighten me.

 

[wirelessenabled]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: homercles337
[ ... ]
Also, would it behoove the both of you to do a little research? This was a press release to promote a book written by Hudson Institute "scientists" funded by a Hudson Institute board member. If youre curious, this institute is well known for challenging well documented "left-wing" (read as not supporting some right-wing agenda) scientific conclusions.

Exactly. This "article" comes from PR Newswire. PR Newswire is NOT a news service like Associated Press. It is a press release service, generally used by corporate marketing departments who want to sell something, e.g. an anti-climate change book. That doesn't prove their study is junk, of course, but it certainly gives it no credibility. Without seeing their study peer-reviewed, it is nothing more than two guys' opinions.

Ooops, forgot to actually read it? Figures.

Hint: This isn't about 2 guys. 😉
Hint 2: It isn't a "anti-climate change" book

CSG, I must be reading challenged also. All I see is a press release promoting a book that one can buy at Amazon for $16.47. No references to any original research or even articles.

Let's see .... The Hudson Institute sends a press release promoting the book Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years by Dennis Avery, Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute, and S. Fred Singer. The PR contains apparently a few quotes from the book. Also states They also noted that their book was funded by Wallace O. Sellers, a Hudson board member, without any corporate contributions.

Looks to me like this IS about two guys, the authors, and it ISN'T an anti-climate change book, just an anti-human-caused-climate change book.

Show us the BEEF:laugh:

 

[Jaskalas]

My thoughts on this are simple thoughts. The earth has been warming since before we built the pyramids ? and even if we tore down all of humanity it will still continue to warm. It is not a reason, except for hysteria, to change our way of life.

Why don?t we ever hear about pollution anymore as a reason to change fuel? I?d like to get behind that one but all I see is the global warming religion chastising heretics and this doesn?t leave much room for reasoned debate.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: wirelessenabled

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: homercles337
[ ... ]
Also, would it behoove the both of you to do a little research? This was a press release to promote a book written by Hudson Institute "scientists" funded by a Hudson Institute board member. If youre curious, this institute is well known for challenging well documented "left-wing" (read as not supporting some right-wing agenda) scientific conclusions.

Exactly. This "article" comes from PR Newswire. PR Newswire is NOT a news service like Associated Press. It is a press release service, generally used by corporate marketing departments who want to sell something, e.g. an anti-climate change book. That doesn't prove their study is junk, of course, but it certainly gives it no credibility. Without seeing their study peer-reviewed, it is nothing more than two guys' opinions.

Ooops, forgot to actually read it? Figures.

Hint: This isn't about 2 guys. 😉
Hint 2: It isn't a "anti-climate change" book

CSG, I must be reading challenged also. All I see is a press release promoting a book that one can buy at Amazon for $16.47. No references to any original research or even articles.

Let's see .... The Hudson Institute sends a press release promoting the book Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years by Dennis Avery, Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute, and S. Fred Singer. The PR contains apparently a few quotes from the book. Also states They also noted that their book was funded by Wallace O. Sellers, a Hudson board member, without any corporate contributions.

Looks to me like this IS about two guys, the authors, and it ISN'T an anti-climate change book, just an anti-human-caused-climate change book.

Show us the BEEF:laugh:

Yes, the book is about the more than 500 peer reviewed studies that go against the MMGW believer's contentions. The point isn't about the book or these two guys(which you,homer and Bow would have realized if had read my OP). The MMGW extremists have always tried to suggest that there wasn't peer reviewed papers by those "against" MMGW but it looks as though they actually exist. It also shows that since there is quite a bit out there, maybe there isn't the "consensus" they keep trying to claim. And if there is all these points out there that poke holes in the MMGW theory maybe the MMGW zealots should stop saying MMGW is "FACT".

Now again, more research needs to be done but to say the debate is over(like the MMGW zealots try to claim) is asinine.

Pick up the book if you want to look at the research they used. 😉

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
My thoughts on this are simple thoughts. The earth has been warming since before we built the pyramids ? and even if we tore down all of humanity it will still continue to warm. It is not a reason, except for hysteria, to change our way of life.

Why don?t we ever hear about pollution anymore as a reason to change fuel? I?d like to get behind that one but all I see is the global warming religion chastising heretics and this doesn?t leave much room for reasoned debate.

That's because that's all you WANT to see. Life is funny that way, if you're fanatical about your position, anyone who even remotely opposes it looks like fanatics themselves. While there is disagreement about global warming, you'll notice that the folks SUPPORTING the idea of man-made global warming rarely, if ever, accuse the non-supporters of having a "religion" or being fanatics or anything of the sort. They think you're wrong, but that's fact based reasoning. Calling someone names and coming up with catchy bumper sticker slogans is not "reasoned debate" in my book...and that's ALL a lot of you non-supporters bring to the table.

If you want a reasoned debate (which I find pretty unlikely), here goes. The facts presented in the OP are interesting, but to anyone with even the slightest understanding of science, they aren't something to justify thumbing your nose at climate change scientists who firmly support the idea that human beings are changing the climate. In fact, without even understanding very much of the climate change issue at all, it should be pretty obvious how dumb this thread is. The presence of past climate change events, and the fact that there are possible natural contributing factors to our current situation, does not prove (or even suggest) that humans aren't or can't affect climate. All it means is that we don't possess the ONLY means to do so. A lot of more specific information suggests we ARE contributing to climate change, coming up with past instances where we didn't, or suggesting additional contributing factors, does nothing to disprove that data.

A religious approach to science is nothing more and nothing less than the act of coming to the table with your mind already made up, and turning the facts to support your predetermined ideas instead of using them to formulate an informed position. These facts do not support your position, and no one approaching this issue with an open mind would conclude otherwise. If climate change is the cause of the day for liberals, it is equally so for conservatives...the fact that you guys uniformly deny that human beings are affecting the climate does not suggest to me that there is a lot of reasoned debate going on. Of course the same thing applies to my side as well, my views should be equally suspect...except I also have facts and science to back up what I'm saying. Maybe I'm just a liberal with a chip on my shoulder about the environment, but an entire library full of evidence suggests I'm right anyways.

Of course as clever as the traditional conservative approach to denouncing science is, it's getting a little old. Pleading with everyone to let "reasoned debate" prevail is the oldest trick in the book when there IS no debate...not because of some conspiracy to crush dissent, but because you have nothing to bring to the table. Although the details are different, it's almost exactly the same approach used to argue against evolution. There is no scientific debate, but conservatives up to and including the President are demanding that schools "teach the debate" which exists only because of statements like "teach the debate". You want a debate? I think we'd all welcome it...but start by HAVING a debate and stop just TALKING about it.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
...
Yes, the book is about the more than 500 peer reviewed studies that go against the MMGW believer's contentions. The point isn't about the book or these two guys(which you,homer and Bow would have realized if had read my OP). The MMGW extremists have always tried to suggest that there wasn't peer reviewed papers by those "against" MMGW but it looks as though they actually exist. It also shows that since there is quite a bit out there, maybe there isn't the "consensus" they keep trying to claim. And if there is all these points out there that poke holes in the MMGW theory maybe the MMGW zealots should stop saying MMGW is "FACT".

Now again, more research needs to be done but to say the debate is over(like the MMGW zealots try to claim) is asinine.

Pick up the book if you want to look at the research they used. 😉

It's really not. This is why complex scientific issues should not be the subject of public debates, no matter how much information is available, because the public is too uninformed to know what they are looking at. It's true in virtually any field, and climate science is certainly no exception. If this wasn't about global warming, NOBODY would be talking about it because nobody outside of the field can understand WHAT the papers are really proving or disproving. I'm not going to trust you or some guys with an axe to grind or Al Gore to tell me what the papers say, I'm going to trust the climate scientists...who are the only ones who understand what they are doing, and who overwhelmingly support the idea that human beings are affecting the environment.

 

[Moonbeam]

Global warming, real or imagined, will not care what we think.

 

[homercles337]

I think this thread is dead and cad needs to go back to school and learn what is and what isnt science. You question the entire scientific discipline of methods in conjunction with peer-review? Fuck, youre a lost cause. How about you, cad, read my post then get back to me. I want to see methods and peer-review on this bullshit PR crap. If you cant do that then we have more proof that youre just a shill for the right, just like the authors of this book and the Hudson Institute.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Global warming, real or imagined, will not care what we think.

That sounds good, because I don't care about global warming, real or imagined.

 

[maluckey]

I normally stay out of these threads of GW, but this one begs my .02 cents.

Fact: Not one scientist has conclusive proof for GW
Fact: Not one scientist has conclusive facts against GW.
Fact: Not one member of AT P & N is involved in GW research or studies

Fact: Until I get conclusive proof of anything, I figure that pollution is universally known to be BAD, and slowing it down won't hurt the environment one bit. It may cost more, but I have basically zero overhead compared to most, so a few bucks doesn't affect me.

Perhaps people should offer ways to cut pollution without affecting the bottom line and we would all embrace it and get warm fuzzies that we are slowing pollutions effect on everything....to include global warming.

OUT!

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: maluckey
I normally stay out of these threads of GW, but this one begs my .02 cents.

Fact: Not one scientist has conclusive proof for GW
Fact: Not one scientist has conclusive facts against GW.
Fact: Not one member of AT P & N is involved in GW research or studies

Fact: Until I get conclusive proof of anything, I figure that pollution is universally known to be BAD, and slowing it down won't hurt the environment one bit. It may cost more, but I have basically zero overhead compared to most, so a few bucks doesn't affect me.

Perhaps people should offer ways to cut pollution without affecting the bottom line and we would all embrace it and get warm fuzzies that we are slowing pollutions effect on everything....to include global warming.

OUT!

Clearly you're not much of a scientist. Things are almost never that clear cut, and while nobody is 100% certain of anything, it's also not the "well nobody knows anything" situation folks might like you to think.

In any case, your position is a rare one...arguing against man-made global warming is a passive-aggressive argument against doing anything about fossil fuel use and other pollutants at all, in the same way that trashing Al Gore has become. This isn't about science or truth, it's about the longstanding dislike a lot of people have of being told that they need to change what they are doing because it's have bad side effects...especially when it comes to the environment. People don't argue against man-made global warming because they oppose "bad science", they do it because they don't want to feel guilty about driving their F-250 every day to their job as a software developer. And more broadly than that, a lot of people really don't like environmentalists (not that some environmentalists aren't annoying jackasses), it's perceived as a "lefty" issue, which is why conservatives seem to have such trouble getting on board at all. Personally I think your position is just a cover...it allows you to care about the environment without looking like a greenie-weenie to other conservatives.

Edit: You're right, none of us are climate scientists...so maybe we should listen to those people who ARE, who almost universally say that your position is stupid.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Global warming, real or imagined, will not care what we think.

That sounds good, because I don't care about global warming, real or imagined.

Well that's really the point, isn't it? It's not that you guys have made a thorough study of the issue and came to the conclusion that man-made global warming isn't real, it's that you don't care about it one way or the other. This "bad science" bullshit is just a pansy ass way of opposing the issue without manning up and saying it like you did. Bravo...you're an idiot, but at least you're honest about it 😉

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: homercles337
[ ... ]
Also, would it behoove the both of you to do a little research? This was a press release to promote a book written by Hudson Institute "scientists" funded by a Hudson Institute board member. If youre curious, this institute is well known for challenging well documented "left-wing" (read as not supporting some right-wing agenda) scientific conclusions.

Exactly. This "article" comes from PR Newswire. PR Newswire is NOT a news service like Associated Press. It is a press release service, generally used by corporate marketing departments who want to sell something, e.g. an anti-climate change book. That doesn't prove their study is junk, of course, but it certainly gives it no credibility. Without seeing their study peer-reviewed, it is nothing more than two guys' opinions.

http://www.earthtimes.org/arti...s_release,176495.shtml

Actually I saw it there first.

I love how the moonbats are so fast to dismiss anything they don't like, imagine the howling if this article had first appeared on Fox!!!! Oh my, you guys would be frothing at your mouths!

You guys are so laughably stupid it makes me glad I am not drinking milk while reading the tripe you write

 

[maluckey]

You're right, none of us are climate scientists...so maybe we should listen to those people who ARE, who almost universally say that your position is stupid.

Maybe you don't get it...I'll speak slower for you...

My position is to cut pollution because it is BAD, regardless of anyones opinion of GW. OPINIONS, self serving-tirades (and especially childish name calling) regarding climatological studies to support your views are counter-productive by your OWN words because...

People don't argue against man-made global warming because they oppose "bad science", they do it because they don't want to feel guilty about driving their F-250 every day to their job as a software developer. And more broadly than that, a lot of people really don't like environmentalists (not that some environmentalists aren't annoying jackasses), it's perceived as a "lefty" issue, which is why conservatives seem to have such trouble getting on board at all.

No secret that I don't own an SUV, and no secret that I like the environment. Most Conservatives and Liberals do too (think Hunting and fishing) I posted on this very forum that I drive an economy car (13 years old!), I work far from a desk, and I like most environmentalists that practice what they preach.

As far as my personal views...you still like labels don't you? I like clean areas because that's the way they should be😉. I dislike pollution because it's a natural thing to not crap where you live.

Finally...according to your insinuation, only conservatives pollute... Tell Al Gore about his zinc mine poisoning the land. In 2000, Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation found that total zinc from Pasminco mine in TN, was 1.480 mg/L [milligrams per liter], which is greater than the monthly average of .65 mg/L and the daily maximum of 1.30 mg/L, and was in violation of State Law. In 1996 the same mine failed twice.

Sure, only conservatives pollute...😀isgust;

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: homercles337
[ ... ]
Also, would it behoove the both of you to do a little research? This was a press release to promote a book written by Hudson Institute "scientists" funded by a Hudson Institute board member. If youre curious, this institute is well known for challenging well documented "left-wing" (read as not supporting some right-wing agenda) scientific conclusions.

Exactly. This "article" comes from PR Newswire. PR Newswire is NOT a news service like Associated Press. It is a press release service, generally used by corporate marketing departments who want to sell something, e.g. an anti-climate change book. That doesn't prove their study is junk, of course, but it certainly gives it no credibility. Without seeing their study peer-reviewed, it is nothing more than two guys' opinions.

http://www.earthtimes.org/arti...s_release,176495.shtml

Actually I saw it there first.

I love how the moonbats are so fast to dismiss anything they don't like, imagine the howling if this article had first appeared on Fox!!!! Oh my, you guys would be frothing at your mouths!

You guys are so laughably stupid it makes me glad I am not drinking milk while reading the tripe you write

Speaking of "laughably stupid", that's the same source as the OP you dolt. If you look at the very first line of their "article", you'll see where they got it: PR Newswire. The OP is a press release selling a book, not an objective article. Anyone can publish a press release claiming anything. Maybe it's junk, maybe it's not, but their methodology and analysis must be peer-reviewed before one could accept their conclusions.

I love how desperate wingnuts like you clamp on such vapor like starving mongrels on rancid road kill, but I suppose you have to take whatever scraps of propaganda you can find.

:laugh:

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: maluckey
I normally stay out of these threads of GW, but this one begs my .02 cents.

Fact: Not one scientist has conclusive proof for GW
Fact: Not one scientist has conclusive facts against GW.
Fact: Not one member of AT P & N is involved in GW research or studies

Fact: Until I get conclusive proof of anything, I figure that pollution is universally known to be BAD, and slowing it down won't hurt the environment one bit. It may cost more, but I have basically zero overhead compared to most, so a few bucks doesn't affect me.

Perhaps people should offer ways to cut pollution without affecting the bottom line and we would all embrace it and get warm fuzzies that we are slowing pollutions effect on everything....to include global warming.

OUT!

Clearly you're not much of a scientist. Things are almost never that clear cut, and while nobody is 100% certain of anything, it's also not the "well nobody knows anything" situation folks might like you to think.

In any case, your position is a rare one...arguing against man-made global warming is a passive-aggressive argument against doing anything about fossil fuel use and other pollutants at all, in the same way that trashing Al Gore has become. This isn't about science or truth, it's about the longstanding dislike a lot of people have of being told that they need to change what they are doing because it's have bad side effects...especially when it comes to the environment. People don't argue against man-made global warming because they oppose "bad science", they do it because they don't want to feel guilty about driving their F-250 every day to their job as a software developer. And more broadly than that, a lot of people really don't like environmentalists (not that some environmentalists aren't annoying jackasses), it's perceived as a "lefty" issue, which is why conservatives seem to have such trouble getting on board at all. Personally I think your position is just a cover...it allows you to care about the environment without looking like a greenie-weenie to other conservatives.

Edit: You're right, none of us are climate scientists...so maybe we should listen to those people who ARE, who almost universally say that your position is stupid.

I never would have guessed the head of the MIT environmental science dept was stupid.

Look up Richard Lindzen.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: maluckey
I normally stay out of these threads of GW, but this one begs my .02 cents.

Fact: Not one scientist has conclusive proof for GW
Fact: Not one scientist has conclusive facts against GW.
Fact: Not one member of AT P & N is involved in GW research or studies

Fact: Until I get conclusive proof of anything, I figure that pollution is universally known to be BAD, and slowing it down won't hurt the environment one bit. It may cost more, but I have basically zero overhead compared to most, so a few bucks doesn't affect me.

Perhaps people should offer ways to cut pollution without affecting the bottom line and we would all embrace it and get warm fuzzies that we are slowing pollutions effect on everything....to include global warming.

OUT!

Clearly you're not much of a scientist. Things are almost never that clear cut, and while nobody is 100% certain of anything, it's also not the "well nobody knows anything" situation folks might like you to think.

In any case, your position is a rare one...arguing against man-made global warming is a passive-aggressive argument against doing anything about fossil fuel use and other pollutants at all, in the same way that trashing Al Gore has become. This isn't about science or truth, it's about the longstanding dislike a lot of people have of being told that they need to change what they are doing because it's have bad side effects...especially when it comes to the environment. People don't argue against man-made global warming because they oppose "bad science", they do it because they don't want to feel guilty about driving their F-250 every day to their job as a software developer. And more broadly than that, a lot of people really don't like environmentalists (not that some environmentalists aren't annoying jackasses), it's perceived as a "lefty" issue, which is why conservatives seem to have such trouble getting on board at all. Personally I think your position is just a cover...it allows you to care about the environment without looking like a greenie-weenie to other conservatives.

Edit: You're right, none of us are climate scientists...so maybe we should listen to those people who ARE, who almost universally say that your position is stupid.

I never would have guessed the head of the MIT environmental science dept was stupid.

Look up Richard Lindzen.

There are reports that Lindzen was fueling his vehicle at a Exxon/Mobile station, so he's obviously a shill for "Big Oil." Discount everything he says...

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Global warming, real or imagined, will not care what we think.

That sounds good, because I don't care about global warming, real or imagined.

Well that's really the point, isn't it? It's not that you guys have made a thorough study of the issue and came to the conclusion that man-made global warming isn't real, it's that you don't care about it one way or the other. This "bad science" bullshit is just a pansy ass way of opposing the issue without manning up and saying it like you did. Bravo...you're an idiot, but at least you're honest about it 😉

Personally I would rather debate an issue with somebody who is honest rather than somebody who is not, so I wouldn't start by calling them an idiot because they are apt 1 to become hostile, or more hostile than they might already be, and 2 be temped, although I doubt so in Nebor's case, to become dishonest to avoid being called an idiot. Also, a person can make a thorough study of the issue and still not care, though it's not real likely.

At any rate, the important issue, in my opinion, aside from the reality, or not, of global warming, is the issue of human compassion and sensitivity to the environment, and why, if you don't care, you maybe should.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: maluckey
I normally stay out of these threads of GW, but this one begs my .02 cents.

Fact: Not one scientist has conclusive proof for GW
Fact: Not one scientist has conclusive facts against GW.
Fact: Not one member of AT P & N is involved in GW research or studies

Fact: Until I get conclusive proof of anything, I figure that pollution is universally known to be BAD, and slowing it down won't hurt the environment one bit. It may cost more, but I have basically zero overhead compared to most, so a few bucks doesn't affect me.

Perhaps people should offer ways to cut pollution without affecting the bottom line and we would all embrace it and get warm fuzzies that we are slowing pollutions effect on everything....to include global warming.

OUT!

Clearly you're not much of a scientist. Things are almost never that clear cut, and while nobody is 100% certain of anything, it's also not the "well nobody knows anything" situation folks might like you to think.

In any case, your position is a rare one...arguing against man-made global warming is a passive-aggressive argument against doing anything about fossil fuel use and other pollutants at all, in the same way that trashing Al Gore has become. This isn't about science or truth, it's about the longstanding dislike a lot of people have of being told that they need to change what they are doing because it's have bad side effects...especially when it comes to the environment. People don't argue against man-made global warming because they oppose "bad science", they do it because they don't want to feel guilty about driving their F-250 every day to their job as a software developer. And more broadly than that, a lot of people really don't like environmentalists (not that some environmentalists aren't annoying jackasses), it's perceived as a "lefty" issue, which is why conservatives seem to have such trouble getting on board at all. Personally I think your position is just a cover...it allows you to care about the environment without looking like a greenie-weenie to other conservatives.

Edit: You're right, none of us are climate scientists...so maybe we should listen to those people who ARE, who almost universally say that your position is stupid.

I never would have guessed the head of the MIT environmental science dept was stupid.

Look up Richard Lindzen.

There are reports that Lindzen was fueling his vehicle at a Exxon/Mobile station, so he's obviously a shill for "Big Oil." Discount everything he says...

The serious irony of course being Exxon contributed to the IPCC.