Global Warming: "Pseudoscientific Fraud"

[Jacob]

Yeah, screw those guys!

While we are at it, we should borrow a ton a money and pass out free stuff to everyone and stick those losers with the debt.

Exactly! That's what we already do!

[woot]

JL's post reminds us of the big issue: GW is a problem that can only be solved with advances in technology. There are both public and private ways to encourage these advances in technology, and I would welcome coming together as a people to work toward it. There would still be vehement disagreements as to how best to handle it, and most people just wouldn't care, but that sure seems better (and more interesting) than our current situation, where the discussion has to be between reality-based and denialist factions. Surely some of the ink spilled battling science deniers could instead be used productively?

I'm sure there are tons of liberals convinced that GW is a currently solvable problem, and it's important that they be educated. Hell, there are probably some neo-luddites who would say that since tech is the source of the problem we should just get rid of it all somehow. I just wish the conservatives would admit there's a problem so the national discussion could move on. As it is, it's like trying to talk about how best to beat a defense with someone who insists that the other team doesn't exist.

Case in point: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5568058.html

This is why I've tended to avoid the debate about whether GW is happening. It's like arguing with a toddler.

[The_Douger]

Case in point: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5568058.html

This is why I've tended to avoid the debate about whether GW is happening. It's like arguing with a toddler.

You can't make this stuff up.

Did you see the piece in the UK dailymail about the antarctic ice increasing? I was kind of curious what you thought about that.

[byu71]

I just wish the conservatives would admit there's a problem so the national discussion could move on. As it is, it's like trying to talk about how best to beat a defense with someone who insists that the other team doesn't exist.

Let me know what the specific problem is and if it is a problem, I will be happy to admit it exists.

You used the term GW, so I am assuming you are saying the problem is Global Warming.

So in 10 years, what are the serious consequences of the planet warming. Can you state for an absolute fact that 10 years from now it will indeed be warming even more?

Why has the pro there is a problem crowd gone to Climate Change as the terminology instead of Global Warming?

My feeling is you (meaning the CC or GW crowd) don't really want a discussion. You want capitulations that the so called scientific community is right and therefor the findings have to be accepted. Once you agree with us (scientists), then with our superior intellect we will tell you what the solutions are.

I actually do respect science, but not enough to think of scientists as folks that can predict the future for me with certainty.

Past results do not always predict a future outcome.

Maybe we could discuss possible problems and then cost/benefit in solving a possible problem.

Quite frankly right now I am a bit more worried about global collision with an astroid.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Let me know what the specific problem is and if it is a problem, I will be happy to admit it exists.

You used the term GW, so I am assuming you are saying the problem is Global Warming.

So in 10 years, what are the serious consequences of the planet warming. Can you state for an absolute fact that 10 years from now it will indeed be warming even more?

Why has the pro there is a problem crowd gone to Climate Change as the terminology instead of Global Warming?

My feeling is you (meaning the CC or GW crowd) don't really want a discussion. You want capitulations that the so called scientific community is right and therefor the findings have to be accepted. Once you agree with us (scientists), then with our superior intellect we will tell you what the solutions are.

I actually do respect science, but not enough to think of scientists as folks that can predict the future for me with certainty.

Past results do not always predict a future outcome.

Maybe we could discuss possible problems and then cost/benefit in solving a possible problem.

Quite frankly right now I am a bit more worried about global collision with an astroid.

woot byu71

[woot]

Let me know what the specific problem is and if it is a problem, I will be happy to admit it exists.

You used the term GW, so I am assuming you are saying the problem is Global Warming.

So in 10 years, what are the serious consequences of the planet warming. Can you state for an absolute fact that 10 years from now it will indeed be warming even more?

Why has the pro there is a problem crowd gone to Climate Change as the terminology instead of Global Warming?

My feeling is you (meaning the CC or GW crowd) don't really want a discussion. You want capitulations that the so called scientific community is right and therefor the findings have to be accepted. Once you agree with us (scientists), then with our superior intellect we will tell you what the solutions are.

I actually do respect science, but not enough to think of scientists as folks that can predict the future for me with certainty.

Past results do not always predict a future outcome.

Maybe we could discuss possible problems and then cost/benefit in solving a possible problem.

Quite frankly right now I am a bit more worried about global collision with an astroid.

Climate change is an old term, and is a distinct concept from global warming. global warming causes climate change, not all of which include, but all of which are caused by, an increase of heat within the earth's atmosphere.

The consequences of global warming 10 years from now will be minor. But that's the point -- motivation to fix this problem has to come largely via empathy for future generations, not selfish considerations. Since this is unlikely to ever happen, the market will get around to addressing this problem as it becomes profitable to do so, and it won't become profitable to do so until alternative energy sources can compete with fossil fuels.

The scientific community does not offer political solutions. That's the whole point I'm getting at. If what you're afraid of is economic collapse, then fight against the political ideas you think would cause it, rather that the scientific facts that should be the premise of the conversation to begin with.

GW is a much bigger threat in the near future than a collision with anything else in the solar system, but in the grand scheme, the latter is indeed a bigger threat. There's a satellite launching soon that will help a lot with asteroid detection, but there's still not a plan in place to change a potential impactor's orbit. We should have at least a few million years to figure that out, but we won't know until we have a much better detection system in place.

[byu71]

Climate change is an old term, and is a distinct concept from global warming. global warming causes climate change, not all of which include, but all of which are caused by, an increase of heat within the earth's atmosphere.

The consequences of global warming 10 years from now will be minor. But that's the point -- motivation to fix this problem has to come largely via empathy for future generations, not selfish considerations. Since this is unlikely to ever happen, the market will get around to addressing this problem as it becomes profitable to do so, and it won't become profitable to do so until alternative energy sources can compete with fossil fuels.

The scientific community does not offer political solutions. That's the whole point I'm getting at. If what you're afraid of is economic collapse, then fight against the political ideas you think would cause it, rather that the scientific facts that should be the premise of the conversation to begin with.

GW is a much bigger threat in the near future than a collision with anything else in the solar system, but in the grand scheme, the latter is indeed a bigger threat. There's a satellite launching soon that will help a lot with asteroid detection, but there's still not a plan in place to change a potential impactor's orbit. We should have at least a few million years to figure that out, but we won't know until we have a much better detection system in place.

No one has convinced me the planet will still be warming in 10 years, 20 years, etc. I was of age to get very nervous about global cooling. There wasn't conservative luddite talk radio to discount it. I thought there was going to be a hole in the ozone layer. So I don't think my skepticism is without some merit.

The other problem for me are the messengers. Not you or JL or others on the board. You may think I am a luddite, but at least I don't think your probably hypocrites with what you believe.

Pelosi, Reid, President Obama, Gore, Barbara S, the folks up at Cape Cod are all f'en hypocrites.

Pelosi wants a huge plane to fly her back and forth across the country when speaker. She is too cool, powerful or whatever to do her part lowing fossil fuel consumption.

Does the President have to vacation clear out in Hawaii. Does Michelle have to travel so much.

How much energy does Al Gore's house eat up compared to the normal guy?

And then there is the nose known as Barbara Streishand. What an environmentalist, except when it comes to how something would change her luxurious lifestyle at home.

Of course the Cap Codites wouldn't let wind farms be developed blocking their scenic views.

These people couldn't care less if energy costs sky rocket. They are all rich enough to absorb the costs. Besides that what they do to earn a living has nothing to do with a strong economy. It all has to do with being able to suck off the needs of others. They create nothing for anyone but themselves. That might be wrong about the Cape Codites. There could be entrepreneurs who live there.

Sorry, but I will have to get past what I see as the bloodsucking leaches on the economy who do nothing to add to it not being GW's prime spokespeople.

What have Pelosi, Streishand, President Obama's and the gang on MSNBC ever done to create a job or build the economy. They have no clue when it comes to building a business and creating jobs. You didn't build that after all.

Oh and thanks for allaying my fears about the collision.

[woot]

No one has convinced me the planet will still be warming in 10 years, 20 years, etc. I was of age to get very nervous about global cooling. There wasn't conservative luddite talk radio to discount it. I thought there was going to be a hole in the ozone layer. So I don't think my skepticism is without some merit.

The other problem for me are the messengers. Not you or JL or others on the board. You may think I am a luddite, but at least I don't think your probably hypocrites with what you believe.

Pelosi, Reid, President Obama, Gore, Barbara S, the folks up at Cape Cod are all f'en hypocrites.

Pelosi wants a huge plane to fly her back and forth across the country when speaker. She is too cool, powerful or whatever to do her part lowing fossil fuel consumption.

Does the President have to vacation clear out in Hawaii. Does Michelle have to travel so much.

How much energy does Al Gore's house eat up compared to the normal guy?

And then there is the nose known as Barbara Streishand. What an environmentalist, except when it comes to how something would change her luxurious lifestyle at home.

Of course the Cap Codites wouldn't let wind farms be developed blocking their scenic views.

These people couldn't care less if energy costs sky rocket. They are all rich enough to absorb the costs. Besides that what they do to earn a living has nothing to do with a strong economy. It all has to do with being able to suck off the needs of others. They create nothing for anyone but themselves. That might be wrong about the Cape Codites. There could be entrepreneurs who live there.

Sorry, but I will have to get past what I see as the bloodsucking leaches on the economy who do nothing to add to it not being GW's prime spokespeople.

What have Pelosi, Streishand, President Obama's and the gang on MSNBC ever done to create a job or build the economy. They have no clue when it comes to building a business and creating jobs. You didn't build that after all.

Oh and thanks for allaying my fears about the collision.

You've brought up global cooling quite a bit, and I've already pointed out that even at the "height" of discussion about global cooling, more than 90% of scientific papers about climate change were about global warming. Also, there was and still is a giant hole in the ozone layer. Dirty liberals affected change that caused it to stop growing, but it'll still be a quite a while before it closes. That's a resounding success story for environmentalist types, if you ask me.

The rest of your post is yet another demonstration of why this is such a frustrating topic of conversation. I don't give a shit about Obama or Pelosi or Reid. They have nothing to do with the reality of global warming. I understand some of the hate directed at them, but it's absolutely crazy that half of our nation thinks that because they don't like some group of politicians, it means something about science. Presumably all of those hated politicians also accept the germ theory of disease, so perhaps it's time for conservatives to take up homeopathy and faith healing.

If you're actually interested in learning why scientists are so sure about global warming and climate change, I strongly recommend the just-ended Cosmos series, specifically episodes 9 and 12. It covers only the most basic principles, but does so in an extremely engaging way.

[byu71]

You've brought up global cooling quite a bit, and I've already pointed out that even at the "height" of discussion about global cooling, more than 90% of scientific papers about climate change were about global warming. Also, there was and still is a giant hole in the ozone layer. Dirty liberals affected change that caused it to stop growing, but it'll still be a quite a while before it closes. That's a resounding success story for environmentalist types, if you ask me.

The rest of your post is yet another demonstration of why this is such a frustrating topic of conversation. I don't give a shit about Obama or Pelosi or Reid. They have nothing to do with the reality of global warming. I understand some of the hate directed at them, but it's absolutely crazy that half of our nation thinks that because they don't like some group of politicians, it means something about science. Presumably all of those hated politicians also accept the germ theory of disease, so perhaps it's time for conservatives to take up homeopathy and faith healing.

If you're actually interested in learning why scientists are so sure about global warming and climate change, I strongly recommend the just-ended Cosmos series, specifically episodes 9 and 12. It covers only the most basic principles, but does so in an extremely engaging way.

I don't hate them, they just make me ill. Believe it or not, I carefully listen to your and JL's points of view on this before disagreeing with you. I don't think either of you have an agenda on this that goes beyond your sincere belief.

I appreciate you haven't directed the luggite label at me directly.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Case in point: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5568058.html

This is why I've tended to avoid the debate about whether GW is happening. It's like arguing with a toddler.

Creekster, I will admit that this story almost made me recoil in horror. But it was more of a groan combined with a double face-palm.

[Topper]

Creekster, I will admit that this story almost made me recoil in horror. But it was more of a groan combined with a double face-palm.

We are worried what a State Senator says from the state of Kentucky as representative of what a majority of people who tend to vote GOP think?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Global Warming: "Pseudoscientific Fraud"

We are worried what a State Senator says from the state of Kentucky as representative of what a majority of people who tend to vote GOP think?

Yeah. He is anti-science like you but he actually has a little power. Scary!

[Topper]

Yeah. He is anti-science like you but he actually has a little power. Scary!

Let's address the first point. He has a little power in the backwater state of Kentucky. Who gives a flying f...?!

Are you now doing your best Jacob imitation by repeating things that aren't true and hoping repetition will make it stick?
How very scientific of you.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Let's address the first point. He has a little power in the backwater state of Kentucky. Who gives a flying f...?!

Are you now doing your best Jacob imitation by repeating things that aren't true and hoping repetition will make it stick?
How very scientific of you.

Second straight angry post. Safe to say you are not in a manic phase.

[Topper]

You are amusing despite your condescension in an unintentional way. Profanity is not a sign of anger. Are you sooner s crazy twin brother?