The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Guest StuckOnStupid]

milspex is like stephen colbert X supreme minus the humor.

[digital_denim]

Wow, HJJ, you reference a scientist who's theories regarding this have never been published in a scientific journal but rather by a publication by Lyndon Larouche. Can you produce a real scientist?

[horriblyjollyjinx]

Wow, HJJ, you reference a scientist who's theories regarding this have never been published in a scientific journal but rather by a publication by Lyndon Larouche. Can you produce a real scientist?

I just told you IPCC has used his work. He's a real scientist.

Again, no ad hominem arguments, thanks.

[chucklebean]

IIRC, horriblyjollyjinx lives in Sweden. I think that means he's never had a chance to get properly accosted on a college campus by LaRouche nuts with their vulgar signs and their social problems. I don't think we can hold it against him.

[digital_denim]

Then I suggest you read this by Zbigniew Jaworowski, who is the scientist upon whose work An Inconvenient Truth and much of the IPCC's reports are based.

http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2007/2007_10-19/2007-11/pdf/38_711_science.pdf

I hardly doubt this since he is a known global warming theory skeptic. Why would two things saying that global warming is happening base their film/report on a global warming skeptic?

But i at least appreciate your honesty, i know you say fuck the environment, free market will fix everything. But the sad part of this film is it uses Africa as a reason to stop pursuing global warming, now that is disturbing. And people are going to believe it..."let's stop spending money on global warming and fix up Africa...."

[horriblyjollyjinx]

... and a supposed byproduct of "global warming/climate change" is supposed to be erratic weather.

No, it in fact isn't. Sure, it is now mentioned in the later reports just to try to cover that criticism, but no attempt is made to prove that a wamer climate would yield record low temperatures.

anyway, i agree that global warming is probably mostly hype, but a lot of the contrarian views for global warming are then accompanied, at least popularly, with the "everything is great, we're correct in all ways so fuck you green/nature ppl!"

waste, unsustainble production methods, and pollution's direct affects on human beings and the immediate areas that we or most folks live in are very real and suck. we need to stop shitting up where we live and our health.

I never said that, so don't even mention it in the same paragraph. That's guilt by association.

As a sidenote, reducing environmental damage does not mean that we need to produces and consume less. What's needed is new technology.

The amount of cars in the world today is ten times that of what it was in the 70s, but total emissions are much lower.

No more politics is necessary, in fact less politics is what's needed.

Removing global subsidies alone would yield a yearly ~1.2% growth of GDP, globally, which could be used to research new technology.

Developing countries would earn about a 100 billion $ from removed subsidies.

Removing subsidies would also greatly lower green house gas emissions(more than 39%) if you're worried about that, lower environmental damage in general and help water supply since the subsidised water isn't being used efficiently.

table 3 p15

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/42/22/35215624.pdf

https://dspace.ubvu.vu.nl/bitstream/1871/9438/1/00005.pdf

[horriblyjollyjinx]

I hardly doubt this since he is a known global warming theory skeptic. Why would two things saying that global warming is happening base their film/report on a global warming skeptic?

What do you mean you doubt that? He's listed by IPCC as a contributor. If you're curious, look it up.

They used his work but chose which data to look at. He has been taking ice core samples from all over the world.

[digital_denim]

Sooooo, they were able to use his data and support global warming....

[horriblyjollyjinx]

Sooooo, they were able to use his data and support global warming....

I said they chose which data to use so to make his findings fit with what they want to say.

Now go read what the actual scientist has to say.

[Tiranis]

Anyone who believes either side without doubt is a douche. Sorry, but use that brain of yours a little, people. I've said it previously -- global warming might be an issue, but the fact is it's also an industry which is making a lot of money now, whether you want to believe that or not, and if the hype machine stopped rolling a lot of people would be out of jobs (but it's the same with opponents of global warming, don't get me wrong). More importantly, scientists WILL jump on any opportunity to get some funding. And politicians, well, does anyone actually believe that they spin this wheel just because they care about Earth so much, and not because spinning it means they're going to be voted into the office.

On the other hand, those against global warming also have their own interests. So you can't believe them 100% either. Both sides are equally biased.

In the end what's important is that new technology is needed so that we can successfuly reduce the amount of waste, regardless of whether there is a Global Warming or not. But I know that I will never buy carbon credits or any other artificial method of dealing with this, I believe that such money could be much better spend on researching new technologies -- because none of what we have now is going to be good enough in the long run.

I also know that the data sample used to support the global warming is very small to prove anything, and overall all the samples are so tweaked to fit the theories of both parties that there's nothing to be found there. The only way I could see any honest research being done is if skeptics and supporters started working together, which could at least balance out their views. But that's me dreaming, I suppose.

[horriblyjollyjinx]

Anyone who believes either side without doubt is a douche. Sorry, but use that brain of yours a little, people. I've said it previously -- global warming might be an issue, but the fact is it's also an industry which is making a lot of money now, whether you want to believe that or not, and if the hype machine stopped rolling a lot of people would be out of jobs (but it's the same with opponents of global warming, don't get me wrong). More importantly, scientists WILL jump on any opportunity to get some funding. And politicians, well, does anyone actually believe that they spin this wheel just because they care about Earth so much, and not because spinning it means they're going to be voted into the office.

On the other hand, those against global warming also have their own interests. So you can't believe them 100% either. Both sides are equally biased.

In the end what's important is that new technology is needed so that we can successfuly reduce the amount of waste, regardless of whether there is a Global Warming or not. But I know that I will never buy carbon credits or any other artificial method of dealing with this, I believe that such money could be much better spend on researching new technologies -- because none of what we have now is going to be good enough in the long run.

I also know that the data sample used to support the global warming is very small to prove anything, and overall all the samples are so tweaked to fit the theories of both parties that there's nothing to be found there. The only way I could see any honest research being done is if skeptics and supporters started working together, which could at least balance out their views. But that's me dreaming, I suppose.

your axiom is that it cant be wrong and it can't be right, but it has to be inbetween.

that in itself is completely wrong and not a scientific, intellectual or honest approach.

what you do is read about the subject with an open mind and then decide who has the better arguments. it has nothing to do with being "balanced" - there's wrong and there's right, no inbetweens.

Humanity is either the driving cause of global warming or it isn't.

[isoform]

No, it in fact isn't. Sure, it is now mentioned in the later reports just to try to cover that criticism, but no attempt is made to prove that a wamer climate would yield record low temperatures.

I thought the argument was the mechanisms for keeping the earth's temperature moderate will be affected by global warming therefore throwing it all into shit and chaos and making the effects of phenoms like El Nino and La Nina more severe, causing unsual cooling in some parts of the world, drying in others, warming in other parts, more floods in other bits, and horribly strong and numerous hurricaines. :shrugs:

I never said that, so don't even mention it in the same paragraph. That's guilt by association.

I never said you said that, just saying...especially in politics that is the inference that neoliberals are making. It's like the saddam and 9/11 thing...noone explicitly said shit, but it kept getting repeated in the same sentence that it confused folk. sucks for all of us.

As a sidenote, reducing environmental damage does not mean that we need to produces and consume less. What's needed is new technology.

The amount of cars in the world today is ten times that of what it was in the 70s, but total emissions are much lower.

No more politics is necessary, in fact less politics is what's needed.

Uhm, politics is needed for, like you said for lowering emissions... they're called government standards. If the standards set and enforced by the government are progressive then that'll force the whole of society to be progressive.

"Politics" is needed because government is needed to protect stuff like the people, where we live, and natural resources that have yet to be exploited.

The government just needs to be run by competent people... who also enforce well-thought-out procedures, standards, and plans for the future.

And why are you suggest governments stop subsidizing water? Can you explain this more to me because I have a life and studies that don't include reading two 20+ page reports. I suppose I'm interpreting this as the government will hand over and stop paying for the purifying and managing of water to the private sector?

Anyway, when ppl say humans are not responsible for global warming/climate change... m'eh... i'unno, most folks will make the leap and assume other things that we're supposedly not responsible for either... which, we really are. y'know?

There's the very will possibility that humans will make the earth uninhabitable for the generations after us. I think that's the real point of all this hype... and it may not be global warming but just pollution and irresponsible, unsustainble exploitation of natural unrenewable resources.

[RAISED BY WOLVES]

The fact that your boy Jinxie brought a LaRouche published article into this debate makes it even more laughable than it already is. He is a nutcase of rare form, who was sentenced to 15 years behind bars for criminal activity. I am not making wholesale accusations, but lets just be safe and say that the jury is still more than out on his (and his associates) credibility.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche

[mwrenchd]

No joke. LaRouche is a frickin nutjob. Anyone who cites him as an authority immediately loses all credibility.

[BTT]

Will the planet get better if I buy eco friendly jeans?

On a side note, even if enviormental sanctions were implemented and the United States ratified the Kyoto Protocol; would the effects be dramatically positive or negative for the United States? Economically speaking, U.S industries will be heavily affected and the severity of the situation is unmeasurable either to the minnimum or catastrophic. That is one of the main reasons why current Administrations are afraid to immediately jump the gun to something that is not completly proven. Now if the United States were to oblige to enviormental policies, would the positives be able to overcome an economical downfall and fall in the most dreaded 2nd place to China? Also, how come China is under the Kyoto Protocol and has ratified to the standards but be exempted from any repercussions?

So to really decide between "Global Warming, Lets get some Nudie Eco Friendly Vegi Dye Jeans" and "Economics and Capitalism" is to balance the two and decide between the positives and negatives, which brings to the conclusion, that this debate (in this thread) is completly invalid and useless. So what I'm saying is that global warming exists, but are countries willing to make these sacrafices?

[Tiranis]

your axiom is that it cant be wrong and it can't be right, but it has to be inbetween.

that in itself is completely wrong and not a scientific, intellectual or honest approach.

what you do is read about the subject with an open mind and then decide who has the better arguments. it has nothing to do with being "balanced" - there's wrong and there's right, no inbetweens.

Humanity is either the driving cause of global warming or it isn't.

Oh ffs. Everything's black and white for you, isn't it? I refuse to continue this debate with someone who thinks that one side always has to be right.

And it's kind of funny that you talk about reading the reports with open mind, when the fact is neither of those reports was written with open mind. They're all biased, one side or the other.

[digital_denim]

there's wrong and there's right, no inbetweens.

That's a scary world you live in mr. jinx.

[Thorns]

Worst Thread Ever.

[mickawes]

I aint no scientist or nuthin, but all I know is that more kids are gettin breathing problems and worse allergies now a days and after walkin around London for a day, I had black shit up my nose. I dunno bout you guys, but in between shitty air, acid rain corroding shit left and right, and getting raped by the Arab Emirates in terms of gas prices, a couple degrees higher in temp is the least of my worries as of late.

And for the new technology thing, imagine the chaos that would result if we suddenly didnt need oil anymore. Hell, with pretty much every world leader all buddy buddy with the energy industry as it is, it would probably never see the light of day anyway.

I think we need a revolution. Some president said that if we dont like something, change it. Or something like that. Im not sure. It was a while ago.

Hmmm. Whos with me?

[MilSpex]

You throw around words like "fact" and "truth" pretty liberally for a conservative.

Check it. All the other scientists admitted it after one blew the whistle. FACT.

[Guest StuckOnStupid]

Wow, HJJ, you reference a scientist who's theories regarding this have never been published in a scientific journal but rather by a publication by Lyndon Larouche.

HAHAHAHAHAH

[Christmas In A Submarine.]

Man, someone needs to cut and paste a good definition of "ad hominem attack" into here, because I'm too tired and its continual misuse is burning my eyes.

[Icicle Cubicle]

Digital Denim is my hero. globally warmed all challengers to a crisp.

[Guest StuckOnStupid]

You throw around words like "fact" and "truth" pretty liberally for a conservative.

the brain melting irony is just that easy. if i was to ration out my firewood to last the winter, one could say i was being "conservative" with it. hilarious.

there was once a time when that word wasn't a slur, it was something that most people who believe in "dont work/dont eat" could be down with. Now it only conjures images of either Kansas "creation scientists" dressed like old-timey pilgrims on a witch-burnin misssion with their fingers in their ears going "LALALALLALALALALA" & offering folklore as a completely viable alternative to the scientific method, or of Simon Legree twisting his fucking mustache sitting with fucking Senator Palpatine smoking cigars at a table made of polar bear skin and the bones of the working poor while G-dub does a kegstand on a barrel of crude.

[airportlobbytx]

There are so many scientists on either side of the issue that I'm just going to leave it up to them to figure things out.

This is false. While I'm all for debate, these odd ball expose documentaries create the illusion that there is actually substantial debate within the scientific community regarding whether human interaction with the environment has sped up global warming. There is very little on this subject. It reminds me of films attempting to deny the Holocaust or Darwinism. You can always find a few outcasts in academia that you can use to parrot an unpopular view (check out the wikipedia article about gross misquoting in the Great Global Warming Swindle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle

Since I'm not a geologist or climatologist, I feel comfortable taking the lead of the great majority of the scientists in the field. And since the stance they are taking is largely beneficial in many tangential ways (cutting back on dependence on the middle east, reducing air pollution, invigorating new technology), some stupid attempt to insert a debate - by many who are very self-interested - where there is very little is not going to give me much pause.

[digital_denim]

Man, someone needs to cut and paste a good definition of "ad hominem attack" into here, because I'm too tired and its continual misuse is burning my eyes.

Cut and paste:

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument. It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument.

Other common subtypes of the ad hominem include the ad hominem circumstantial, or ad hominem circumstantiae, an attack which is directed at the circumstances or situation of the arguer; and the ad hominem tu quoque, which objects to an argument by characterizing the arguer as being guilty of the same thing that he is arguing against.

Hey, we use this in our legal system everyday. If it's coming from a bull's ass, i'm going to call it bullshit. I'll be right 99% of the time.

[cultpop 0217]

your axiom is that it cant be wrong and it can't be right, but it has to be inbetween.

that in itself is completely wrong and not a scientific, intellectual or honest approach.

what you do is read about the subject with an open mind and then decide who has the better arguments. it has nothing to do with being "balanced" - there's wrong and there's right, no inbetweens.

Humanity is either the driving cause of global warming or it isn't.

yeah the world is completely black or white, right or wrong. evil vs. good. chocolate vs. vanilla. no shades of grey whatsoever. you sound like our president. thats scary.

bottom line: anyone who thinks we arent causing some kind of enviornmental damage is living in a fantasy world. are we affecting global temperatures? maybe. maybe not.

but we are removing the worlds forrests at an alarming rate, our water supply is being tainted, garbage is found floating in 200 mile long trails in our oceans, and our dependancy on fossil fuels is causing world wide conflict and pollution. you really think we went into iraq because of wmds? thats so naive its laughable. air quality in most major cities is horrible, asthma rates are up, and landfills are spilling over. are you trying to convince us pollution is not an issue? just because global temperature change hasn't been conclusively pinned on humans means we should do nothing to change the way we treat our enviornment? c'mon. its definatly not a either/or type of situation. you think that stuff coming out our tailpipes is good for us, the air, or our children's futures? tell you the truth im more concerned with my sons lungs and health than the climate. there is a better way people.

And yeah.. during week 6-8th of April, 150 new cold records were made in the US.

www.accuweather.com

How's that for a global warming.

haha. that kind of evidence hurts your argumnet actually. anyone who thinks the issue of global warming is just about warmer temps is a simpleton. yes, that means you.

This is false. While I'm all for debate, these odd ball expose documentaries create the illusion that there is actually substantial debate within the scientific community regarding whether human interaction with the environment has sped up global warming. There is very little on this subject. It reminds me of films attempting to deny the Holocaust or Darwinism. You can always find a few outcasts in academia that you can use to parrot an unpopular view (check out the wikipedia article about gross misquoting in the Great Global Warming Swindle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle

Since I'm not a geologist or climatologist, I feel comfortable taking the lead of the great majority of the scientists in the field. And since the stance they are taking is largely beneficial in many tangential ways (cutting back on dependence on the middle east, reducing air pollution, invigorating new technology), some stupid attempt to insert a debate where there is very little is not going to give me much pause.

exactly. who cares about temp change when all the other obvious benefits of cleaning shit up can not be argued. air quality is so bad in some places they wear surgical masks in order to breathe better. i honestly think that enviornmentalists need to stop focusing on "global warming" (since so many fools think its actually about the world getting hotter) and focus on things that cant be argued against with phony data. you cant argue that we are mucking up our planet in very obvious ways and that treating it better would be beneficial to all.

although im sure some of you will try.

[soraanaam]

nature is cool

[LA Guy]

The Earth Sciences community, as a whole, believes that there is overwhelming evidence of global warming, and that this warming is for the most part caused by antropogenic activity, i.e. humans are responsible. There are a tiny fraction of the community who do not agree. However, consensus should not be confused with unanimity. There are always those with a contrary opinion.

I really don't wish to engage in a debate on the topic, because it is extremely time consuming, and I've banged my head against the wall on Styleforum about this subject many, many times. However, suffice it to say that the IPCC report is quite thorough on the topic. Because it is a document written by committee, not everyone will agree with every phrase in the report. However, most of these objections are very minor, (though not the to scientists studying a particular facet of climate change.) The objections in the film being discussed here are chimeras. First and foremost, there is no plausible evidence of any collusion at any level.

There are certainly many, many, scientists much more qualified to speak to this topic than I am. Howeverm, I have a masters and a doctorate in environmental science and engineering, and will be a professor in the same come fall.

[kwiteaboy]

will be a professor in the same come fall.

Awesome, where at?