Why Did Global Warming Become a Moral Matter?
Zipperfish @ Sat Nov 10, 2007 6:07 pm
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
The why does Al Gore have a big house?
That's a good question. If the situation is truly as dire as Mr. Gore says it is then why doesn't his personal behavior reflect his publicly stated beliefs? If reducing one's carbon emissions is truly important then why is Mr. Gore among the worlds top 0.001% of individual carbon emitters?
Exactly. It just proves that climate change is a bunch of crap.
Uh, Zip, if we're all supposed to buy in to your anti-global warming thing you might want to change that siggy of yours first.
No--now it's sarcastic!
Zipperfish @ Sat Nov 10, 2007 6:10 pm
Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:
Hey samsquanch, I'll give you $5000 cash if you scientifically prove that no warming, anthropogenic or otherwise, has occured globally in the last century.
Of course, there's a $20 entrance fee, and the proof must consist of your own original work produced for this challenge. I reserve all rights to determine the validity of your argument.
Easy money, samsquach, go for it.
Of course, there's a $20 entrance fee, and the proof must consist of your own original work produced for this challenge. I reserve all rights to determine the validity of your argument.
Easy money, samsquach, go for it.
I'll give you proof: Al Gore has a big house adn teh UN are all communists, and anyone that believes in global warming wants to ruin the eoncomy of the world therefore they are morally worse than Aushwitz gaurds.
Blue_Nose @ Sat Nov 10, 2007 6:14 pm
sasquatch2 sasquatch2:
Bluenose
That's not even clever. You are prejudiced ab initio so your caveat invalidates your proposition.
Gee, it didn't take you long to catch on to that one, did it?$1:
I reserve all rights to determine the validity of your argument.
That's not even clever. You are prejudiced ab initio so your caveat invalidates your proposition.
Kind of (well, exactly) like
$1:
JunkScience.com, in its sole discretion, will determine the winner, if any, from UGWC entries.
One might almost think that that was the whole point of my post.sasquatch2 sasquatch2:
Why don't you go for the $125,000.00 because you can't and you know it.
Like all GWs you always have to have your thumb on the scale.
Maybe I don't because I don't have any reason to disagree with either hypothesis:Like all GWs you always have to have your thumb on the scale.
$1:
UGWC Hypothesis 1
Manmade emissions of greenhouse gases do not discernibly, significantly and predictably cause increases in global surface and tropospheric temperatures along with associated stratospheric cooling.
UGWC Hypothesis 2
The benefits equal or exceed the costs of any increases in global temperature caused by manmade greenhouse gas emissions between the present time and the year 2100, when all global social, economic and environmental effects are considered.
Can you please get that into your retarded little trucker head? I don't support, nor have I ever supported, the notion of anthropogenic global warming, PERIOD. Even though I'm open to the notion of disproving #1, I absolutely agree with hypothesis #2, regardless.
Manmade emissions of greenhouse gases do not discernibly, significantly and predictably cause increases in global surface and tropospheric temperatures along with associated stratospheric cooling.
UGWC Hypothesis 2
The benefits equal or exceed the costs of any increases in global temperature caused by manmade greenhouse gas emissions between the present time and the year 2100, when all global social, economic and environmental effects are considered.
The fact that you're a complete moron and I say so doesn't make me a global warming supporter.
Again, those two points, samsquanch, because you've probably already forgotten:
1. I have never supported CO2 AGW.
2. You're a complete moron.
sasquatch2 @ Sat Nov 10, 2007 7:57 pm
In classical debating that is called shifting ground.
Speaking of horseshit----I found this interesting little piece.
$1:
Micheal Crichton states, "Nobody believes a weather prediction twelve hours ahead. Now we're being asked to believe a prediction that goes out 100 years into the future? And make financial investments based on that prediction? Has everybody lost their minds?" He goes on to point out:
"Let's think back to people in 1900 in, say, New York. If they worried about people in 2000, what would they worry about? Probably: Where would people get enough horses? And what would they do about all the horseshit? Horse pollution was bad in 1900, think how much worse it would be a century later, with so many more people riding horses?
"But of course, within a few years, nobody rode horses except for sport. And in 2000, France was getting 80% its power from an energy source that was unknown in 1900. Germany, Switzerland, Belgium and Japan were getting more than 30% from this source, unknown in 1900. Remember, people in 1900 didn't know what an atom was. They didn't know its structure. They also didn't know what a radio was, or an airport, or a movie, or a television, or a computer, or a cell phone, or a jet, an antibiotic, a rocket, a satellite, an MRI, ICU, IUD, IBM, IRA, ERA, EEG, EPA, IRS, DOD, PCP, HTML, internet. interferon….
"Now. You tell me you can predict the world of 2100. Tell me it's even worth thinking about. Our models just carry the present into the future. They're bound to be wrong. Everybody who gives a moment's thought knows it."
"Let's think back to people in 1900 in, say, New York. If they worried about people in 2000, what would they worry about? Probably: Where would people get enough horses? And what would they do about all the horseshit? Horse pollution was bad in 1900, think how much worse it would be a century later, with so many more people riding horses?
"But of course, within a few years, nobody rode horses except for sport. And in 2000, France was getting 80% its power from an energy source that was unknown in 1900. Germany, Switzerland, Belgium and Japan were getting more than 30% from this source, unknown in 1900. Remember, people in 1900 didn't know what an atom was. They didn't know its structure. They also didn't know what a radio was, or an airport, or a movie, or a television, or a computer, or a cell phone, or a jet, an antibiotic, a rocket, a satellite, an MRI, ICU, IUD, IBM, IRA, ERA, EEG, EPA, IRS, DOD, PCP, HTML, internet. interferon….
"Now. You tell me you can predict the world of 2100. Tell me it's even worth thinking about. Our models just carry the present into the future. They're bound to be wrong. Everybody who gives a moment's thought knows it."
Zipperfish @ Sun Nov 11, 2007 2:12 am
sasquatch2 sasquatch2:
In classical debating that is called shifting ground.
Speaking of horseshit----I found this interesting little piece.
Speaking of horseshit----I found this interesting little piece.
$1:
Micheal Crichton states, "Nobody believes a weather prediction twelve hours ahead. Now we're being asked to believe a prediction that goes out 100 years into the future? And make financial investments based on that prediction? Has everybody lost their minds?" He goes on to point out:
"Let's think back to people in 1900 in, say, New York. If they worried about people in 2000, what would they worry about? Probably: Where would people get enough horses? And what would they do about all the horseshit? Horse pollution was bad in 1900, think how much worse it would be a century later, with so many more people riding horses?
"But of course, within a few years, nobody rode horses except for sport. And in 2000, France was getting 80% its power from an energy source that was unknown in 1900. Germany, Switzerland, Belgium and Japan were getting more than 30% from this source, unknown in 1900. Remember, people in 1900 didn't know what an atom was. They didn't know its structure. They also didn't know what a radio was, or an airport, or a movie, or a television, or a computer, or a cell phone, or a jet, an antibiotic, a rocket, a satellite, an MRI, ICU, IUD, IBM, IRA, ERA, EEG, EPA, IRS, DOD, PCP, HTML, internet. interferon….
"Now. You tell me you can predict the world of 2100. Tell me it's even worth thinking about. Our models just carry the present into the future. They're bound to be wrong. Everybody who gives a moment's thought knows it."
"Let's think back to people in 1900 in, say, New York. If they worried about people in 2000, what would they worry about? Probably: Where would people get enough horses? And what would they do about all the horseshit? Horse pollution was bad in 1900, think how much worse it would be a century later, with so many more people riding horses?
"But of course, within a few years, nobody rode horses except for sport. And in 2000, France was getting 80% its power from an energy source that was unknown in 1900. Germany, Switzerland, Belgium and Japan were getting more than 30% from this source, unknown in 1900. Remember, people in 1900 didn't know what an atom was. They didn't know its structure. They also didn't know what a radio was, or an airport, or a movie, or a television, or a computer, or a cell phone, or a jet, an antibiotic, a rocket, a satellite, an MRI, ICU, IUD, IBM, IRA, ERA, EEG, EPA, IRS, DOD, PCP, HTML, internet. interferon….
"Now. You tell me you can predict the world of 2100. Tell me it's even worth thinking about. Our models just carry the present into the future. They're bound to be wrong. Everybody who gives a moment's thought knows it."
Thank you , Sasquatch. Everyone knows that Michael Crichton is a best-selling author with a lot of very successful books under his belt. Who are you going to believe? These liberal scientists and their "facts" or a best-selling author who has written about scientists?
The FACT is that in not one of their reports did the IPCC mention the size of Al Gore's house. And they call themselves "scientists."
sasquatch2 @ Sun Nov 11, 2007 9:16 am
Well scooter! One of the aspects of this pathetic sequence of propaganda, psyops and fraud is the reliance upon the foolish notion that scientists are apolitical and science is fixed, and codified.
Part of this fraud is the representation of their preposterous claims and science fiction as proven, verified "facts". In the fact, their collection of BS they have named "the science."
The "facts" have been exposed as fraud and "the science" a weird mix of propaganda and fraud.
The "consensus" has been discredited in principle as unscientific, irrelevant and in it's finality as non-existant. The "thousands of scientists" of the IPCC has been on examination reduced to a mere hand-full of environmental activists who write summaries which do not reflect the scientific chapters, whose publication is delayed and suppressed.
Michael Crichton's credentials, on the basis of the criteria of the AGW camp are relevant, much more relevant to climate science than failed politicians, actors and fruitfly counters.
"The inconvenient truth" about Crichton's "State of fear" is the presentation of peer-revue science as footnotes. This is peer-revue science not political propaganda, vouched for by political propagandists.
Because this campaign of deceit has been conducted using modern, mass media techniques, it continues to roll on and on despite it's theological foundations having been removed.
The result is when it is reliably reported the Greenland's warmest year was 1941, Hockey Pucks moments later blurt: "You are ignorant and uneducated! You don't know the science."
That is not science but stupid blind faith.
neopundit @ Sun Nov 11, 2007 9:43 am
sasquatch2 sasquatch2:
The result is when it is reliably reported the Greenland's warmest year was 1941, Hockey Pucks moments later blurt: "You are ignorant and uneducated! You don't know the science."
Yes. Because if you believe that Greenland having its warmest year in 1941 discredits global warming you are ignorant and uneducated. You don't know the science.
There may be a scientific argument out there that proves your case, but pointing out anamolies is not it.
Also, I keep seeing the anti-GW crowd screaming about "the consensus". It's pretty obvious there is no consensus, or there wouldn't be any debate. Is that your goal? Is that what you are trying to accomplish, the admittance that there is not 100% consensus in favour of GW?
Or are you committing the same fallacy and claiming that GW doesn't exist, and there's a consensus there?
Blue_Nose @ Sun Nov 11, 2007 12:10 pm
sasquatch2 sasquatch2:
In classical debating that is called shifting ground.
Try again, trucker-boy. I've never supported athropogenic CO2 global warming, and I've always supported the fact that you're a complete moron. Your presence here has diminished to being Zipperfish's punchline - bravo.
N_Fiddledog @ Sun Nov 11, 2007 12:28 pm
There's much more to the critique of offering Greenland up as proof of a coming climate catastrophe than the simple fact 1941 was a warmer year in in Greenland - which btw according NASA it was.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Greenland_vs_AMO.jpg
Here's a couple of examples of some of the Greenland critique.
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog ... not_exist/
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/LINEAR_THING.pdf
There's much more to the critique of Al Gore as hypocrite than the fact he lives in a big house. You can see some of that at this link.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/ed ... reen_x.htm
Also this hypocrisy is representative of a much larger collection of hypocrites within the global warming movement. Seen here.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/ ... 17,00.html
For me the main difference between what Gore (educated in law) says, and what Michael Crichton (educated in the medical sciences) says is the way they say it. Crichton offers his critiques of a supposed future climate catastrophe as opinion. Gore offers his predictions of an imminent climate catastrophe as science.
As far as the supposed consensus goes, let's be fair. Skeptics didn't introduce that proposal to the debate. Alarmists did. Skeptics critiqued it.
Edit
I'm trying to figure out what this feud is about between BN and Sasquatch. I don't see why BN's position of "wait until all the science comes in", and Sasquatch's position of "It's all bullshit, so let's not politicize it" can't play nice. The final result is the same.
Near as I can figure it has something to do with Sasquatch seeing BN as promoting computer models as the last word in science, then it got personal from there. Is that correct?
Blue_Nose @ Sun Nov 11, 2007 12:51 pm
N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
I'm trying to figure out what this feud is about between BN and Sasquatch. Near as I can figure BN's position of "wait until all the science comes in", and Sasquatch's position of "It's all bullshit, so let's not politicize it" should be able to play nice.
Near as I can figure it has something to do with Sasquatch seeing BN as promoting computer models as the last word in science, then it got personal from there. Is that correct?
Samsquanch is one of many people that suffer from my intolerance of those who are more interested in pushing a specific agenda than actually discussing anything. There's no almost no room for a serious discussion on the subject because it immediately degenerates into the "Al Gore is an idiot", "global warming commies are trying to destroy our lives", "hockey pucks" foolishness that usually doesn't even apply to the topic. When I've spoken out against that, he has insisted that it's evidence that I'm a global warming/communism/tree hugging/oil-hating supporter.
Near as I can figure it has something to do with Sasquatch seeing BN as promoting computer models as the last word in science, then it got personal from there. Is that correct?
There's nothing "personal" between us - I simply can't stand his ignorant nonsense. I know it's par for the course when it comes to political discussions, but that why I stay away from those and stick to the science forum.
neopundit @ Sun Nov 11, 2007 12:57 pm
N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
There's much more to the critique of offering Greenland up as proof of a coming climate catastrophe than the simple fact 1941 was a warmer year in in Greenland - which btw according NASA it was.
Look, you seem to be able to put together a good argument. Unfortunately, as I've stated before, I don't have much interest in this debate and as such am not really qualified to argue.
What does bother me however, and should bother you as well, is that regardless of how good a case you make you have a bunch of idiots latching onto your argument that have no idea how any of this works. They just know that they hate Al Gore, and Liberals and that's good enough. The result is some of the more absurd claims in the thread.
So I'll leave you guys to it.
Zipperfish @ Sun Nov 11, 2007 12:57 pm
N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
There's much more to the critique of Al Gore as hypocrite than the fact he lives in a big house. You can see some of that at this link.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/ed ... reen_x.htm
Also this hypocrisy is representative of a much larger collection of hypocrites within the global warming movement. Seen here.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/ed ... reen_x.htm
Also this hypocrisy is representative of a much larger collection of hypocrites within the global warming movement. Seen here.
Exactly, Fiddledog. If climate change were real why would Al Gore live in a big house. Obvious, he is a hypocrite and that means that all those liberal scientists and their "facts" are lying to get grant money. This is the point that we've been trying to make all aong. Everyone knows that there is no hypocrites or vested interests on our side.
$1:
I'm trying to figure out what this feud is about between BN and Sasquatch. I don't see why BN's position of "wait until all the science comes in", and Sasquatch's position of "It's all bullshit, so let's not politicize it" can't play nice. The final result is the same.
Blue Nose is one of these arrogant people who thinks that you have to read about an issue before commenting on it. He thinks he's better than Sasquatch just because Sasquatch doesn't bother to read all the numbers and stuff. Why should he? This isn't a scientific issue, it's a political one. And Sasquatch is politically on the right therefore he must be right, and the left must be wrong.
N_Fiddledog @ Sun Nov 11, 2007 1:01 pm
Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:
N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
I'm trying to figure out what this feud is about between BN and Sasquatch. Near as I can figure BN's position of "wait until all the science comes in", and Sasquatch's position of "It's all bullshit, so let's not politicize it" should be able to play nice.
Near as I can figure it has something to do with Sasquatch seeing BN as promoting computer models as the last word in science, then it got personal from there. Is that correct?
Samsquanch is one of many people that suffer from my intolerance of those who are more interested in pushing a specific agenda than actually discussing anything. There's no almost no room for a serious discussion on the subject because it immediately degenerates into the "Al Gore is an idiot", "global warming commies are trying to destroy our lives", "hockey pucks" foolishness that usually doesn't even apply to the topic. When I've spoken out against that, he has insisted that it's evidence that I'm a global warming/communism/tree hugging/oil-hating supporter.Near as I can figure it has something to do with Sasquatch seeing BN as promoting computer models as the last word in science, then it got personal from there. Is that correct?
There's nothing "personal" between us - I simply can't stand his ignorant nonsense. I know it's par for the course when it comes to political discussions, but that why I stay away from those and stick to the science forum.
And I'm assuming he gets upset when you do stuff like dismiss the opinions of working class people as those of "Joe Burger Flipper", and say those opinions don't matter, even though the politicization of the global warming movement is directed at those same people. I'm guessing he would see that as arrogant.
It's unfortunate it needs to get personal when the two arguments want basically the same thing as a final outcome.
Zipperfish @ Sun Nov 11, 2007 1:04 pm
N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:
N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
I'm trying to figure out what this feud is about between BN and Sasquatch. Near as I can figure BN's position of "wait until all the science comes in", and Sasquatch's position of "It's all bullshit, so let's not politicize it" should be able to play nice.
Near as I can figure it has something to do with Sasquatch seeing BN as promoting computer models as the last word in science, then it got personal from there. Is that correct?
Samsquanch is one of many people that suffer from my intolerance of those who are more interested in pushing a specific agenda than actually discussing anything. There's no almost no room for a serious discussion on the subject because it immediately degenerates into the "Al Gore is an idiot", "global warming commies are trying to destroy our lives", "hockey pucks" foolishness that usually doesn't even apply to the topic. When I've spoken out against that, he has insisted that it's evidence that I'm a global warming/communism/tree hugging/oil-hating supporter.Near as I can figure it has something to do with Sasquatch seeing BN as promoting computer models as the last word in science, then it got personal from there. Is that correct?
There's nothing "personal" between us - I simply can't stand his ignorant nonsense. I know it's par for the course when it comes to political discussions, but that why I stay away from those and stick to the science forum.
And I'm assuming he gets upset when you do stuff like dismiss the opinions of working class people as those of "Joe Burger Flipper", and say those opinions don't matter, when the politicization of the global warming movement is directed at those same people. I'm guessing he would see that as arrogant.
It's unfortunate it needs to get personal when the two arguments want basically the same thing as a final outcome.
That's funny--we both made the same point at the ame time. I'm getting pretty good at this "other side of the fence thing."
N_Fiddledog @ Sun Nov 11, 2007 1:20 pm
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
That's funny--we both made the same point at the ame time. I'm getting pretty good at this "other side of the fence thing."
Yeah, I know. It's easy when one knows where the better argument lies. Although you missed a link showing the broad general hypocrisy of the Global warming movement. It's this one.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/ ... 17,00.html
It speaks of stuff like the $70 million dollar bash in Bali the UN is holding, and calling a 'climate change conference'. The carbon footprint of the air flights alone is 30,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide, and is more than the greenhouse gases that 7000 family cars typically emit in an entire year.