GatewayRedbirds.com

A Message Board Dedicated to Discussing St. Louis Cardinals Baseball!
It is currently September 19 19, 4:22 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 927 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 93  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: November 7 07, 9:10 am 
Offline
All-Star

Joined: April 18 06, 7:31 pm
Posts: 1268
Location: Tucson, Arizona waiting for a Tesla
Then someone please explain the articles that were linked?

mere fabrication?

Curious more then anything of how, once you believe something, nothing will allow you to perhaps, perchance, be led to a different conclusion.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: November 7 07, 9:13 am 
Offline
Hall Of Famer
User avatar

Joined: April 18 06, 9:40 pm
Posts: 24331
It seems to me there's enough qualified dissent to warrant skepticism on most points. I don't understand the urge to dismiss anyone who doesn't believe in it as a kook. There's been monolithic agreement among scientists before that has been challenged and turned around. I think it would be silly to say we have no effect, but the human tendency toward "the world's going to hell in a handbasket" kind of thinking is somewhat at play, IMO. What's also increased in the late twentieth century is the need to view everything as an impending crisis, and it's driven by the 24 hour news media as much as anything.

If it is real, I think we can probably adapt to whatever changes come about, and will have the motivation and ability to reverse it. Then we can go back to our regularly scheduled gobbling of earth's resources.

None of that is to excuse pollution or bad practices by corporations or individuals, and most of the steps being suggested to curb global warming have other benefits - i.e. Nuclear power ramping up, greater interest in renewable fuels, decreasing pollution in general, environmental awareness, etc...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: November 7 07, 9:18 am 
Offline
All-Star

Joined: April 18 06, 7:31 pm
Posts: 1268
Location: Tucson, Arizona waiting for a Tesla
"All round the developed world, governments are being pressured by the
United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to
accept the integrity of scenarios of future climate behaviour agreed by
their own climate bureaucrats, but these bureaucrats are the very people
that Dr Renwick now tells us get it right only half the time. Worse, he
tells us they are unable to predict weather beyond a week or two, yet in
conjunction with the IPCC they presume to tell us what to expect over the
next few decades.
“The link between climate and weather is well known: climate is
determined by averaging weather variables over an extended period
(usually 30 years) at one place or for a region. How can there be any faith
in climate predictions by officials who admit they are unable to forecast
the weather beyond a week or two?
“Perhaps now, governments will pay heed to those many independent
climate scientists around the world who have been challenging the
exaggerated projections by IPCC officials, and those political zealots
such as Al Gore who use those predictions to mislead the ordinary public.
“In the light of these revelations and recent strong evidence that the sun
not carbon dioxide controls the climate, the new Secretary General of the
UN, Ban Ki Moon would do the world a great service by creating an
opportunity for the world to hear from the independent scientists who
disagree with the IPCC’s blaming mankind for climate variability that is
natural and historic. There is no scientific justification for some of the
extremist economic and social penalties that a minority of zealots are
trying to impose on the people of the world.
“This is a matter of grave import and urgency for poorer nations who will
suffer most from the proposed penal measures, “ said Admiral Welch.
ends



Does anyone read these links?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: November 7 07, 9:25 am 
Offline
Bringer of FRBG
User avatar

Joined: April 16 06, 7:13 pm
Posts: 10385
Location: Alabama
Propaganda is easy for many to write.

Do we know all the facts or completely understand what's going on? Absolutely not.

But the data is the data. The temperature has risen and it has done so during a time when we have introduced CO2 into our environment.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: November 7 07, 9:34 am 
Offline
MacGyver of Underwear
User avatar

Joined: April 18 06, 7:53 am
Posts: 12449
Location: South City
MaskedMan wrote:
Then someone please explain the articles that were linked?

mere fabrication?

Curious more then anything of how, once you believe something, nothing will allow you to perhaps, perchance, be led to a different conclusion.


I find it interesting that you insinuate that your opponents here are guilty of what is in bold for not conforming to your data and articles, when you are doing the same thing, not conforming to Arthur Dent's data and articles.

Pot/kettle/black


Last edited by JCShutout on November 7 07, 9:37 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: November 7 07, 9:36 am 
Offline
Hall Of Famer
User avatar

Joined: November 9 06, 6:45 am
Posts: 19875
Location: a proud midwestern metropolis
I read the title and figured I missed something.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: November 7 07, 9:54 am 
Offline
Hall Of Famer

Joined: April 25 06, 6:43 pm
Posts: 11471
Location: Austin
ghostrunner wrote:
It seems to me there's enough qualified dissent to warrant skepticism on most points. I don't understand the urge to dismiss anyone who doesn't believe in it as a kook. There's been monolithic agreement among scientists before that has been challenged and turned around. I think it would be silly to say we have no effect, but the human tendency toward "the world's going to hell in a handbasket" kind of thinking is somewhat at play, IMO. What's also increased in the late twentieth century is the need to view everything as an impending crisis, and it's driven by the 24 hour news media as much as anything.

I agree with you about the tendency to believe that everything is going to hell. That's why it's important to look at the actual data to see whether concern is actually warranted. The skepticism, however, in the public debate about global warming has been overwhelmingly ridiculous often making completely false claims, proposing alternative theories known to be false from available data, avoiding the science in favor of unsupported claims about motives, etc. The strategy seems to be to plant doubt and exploit the natural (and positive) tendency of people to distrust authority. You can do that without making decent arguments. You just have to give people the impression that there is a controversy.

ghostrunner wrote:
If it is real, I think we can probably adapt to whatever changes come about, and will have the motivation and ability to reverse it. Then we can go back to our regularly scheduled gobbling of earth's resources.

I'd say that's a very reckless approach. Shooting the rapids unprepared just hoping we'll make it through OK. We don't have to go back to living in caves to deal with this problem. In fact, there was another giant study released recently on the likely economic costs of global warming which concluded that the costs of dealing with it would be less than the cost of letting it play out.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: November 7 07, 10:54 am 
Offline
Everday Unicorn
User avatar

Joined: April 21 06, 10:14 am
Posts: 34750
Location: Austin, TX
Arthur Dent wrote:
ghostrunner wrote:
It seems to me there's enough qualified dissent to warrant skepticism on most points. I don't understand the urge to dismiss anyone who doesn't believe in it as a kook. There's been monolithic agreement among scientists before that has been challenged and turned around. I think it would be silly to say we have no effect, but the human tendency toward "the world's going to hell in a handbasket" kind of thinking is somewhat at play, IMO. What's also increased in the late twentieth century is the need to view everything as an impending crisis, and it's driven by the 24 hour news media as much as anything.

I agree with you about the tendency to believe that everything is going to hell. That's why it's important to look at the actual data to see whether concern is actually warranted. The skepticism, however, in the public debate about global warming has been overwhelmingly ridiculous often making completely false claims, proposing alternative theories known to be false from available data, avoiding the science in favor of unsupported claims about motives, etc. The strategy seems to be to plant doubt and exploit the natural (and positive) tendency of people to distrust authority. You can do that without making decent arguments. You just have to give people the impression that there is a controversy.

ghostrunner wrote:
If it is real, I think we can probably adapt to whatever changes come about, and will have the motivation and ability to reverse it. Then we can go back to our regularly scheduled gobbling of earth's resources.

I'd say that's a very reckless approach. Shooting the rapids unprepared just hoping we'll make it through OK. We don't have to go back to living in caves to deal with this problem. In fact, there was another giant study released recently on the likely economic costs of global warming which concluded that the costs of dealing with it would be less than the cost of letting it play out.


53% of Americans live in coastal zones now. I don't know the global numbers, but most major cities are on coasts. Think of the effect of the tsunami on coastal zones in southeast asia. I don't think adapting to whatever changes may come is a realistic option, unless we're prepared for a substantial, preventable loss of human life.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: November 7 07, 10:55 am 
Offline
bronoun enthusiast
User avatar

Joined: April 14 06, 10:45 pm
Posts: 28443
Location: extremely online
The most ridiculous thing about all of this is the fact that the impact civilization has made on the environment is unprecedented yet people draw definitive conclusions based on conjecture.

IT'S GETTING COLDER SO IT CAN'T BE GLOBAL WARMING!

No, really? Unfortunately named does not mean wrong. Guess what, we don't have any idea of what our negative environmental impact will have on the Earth. It could get warmer, it could get colder, either way it isn't natural.

Since the beginning of time the temperature of Earth has gone through warming and cold periods. We all know about the ice age, the little ice age and the warm periods of the renaissance and present day. Such cycles will continue to happen no matter what we do.

We do not however definitively know what our carbon output, deforestation and urban sprawl is going to cause. To be so devisive and contentious about an issue like this is moronic.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: November 7 07, 11:09 am 
Offline
99% conan clips
User avatar

Joined: April 18 06, 5:14 pm
Posts: 55258
i absolutely still believe in global warming


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 927 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 93  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: InvincibleCakeEater and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group