Anti-Global Warming Propaganda Goes Here

you could go so far as to say that. but it's just too bad people who come to conclusions you oppose hapen to be members of the scientific community. not all the nay sayers are just random rabble rousers. folks like you disregard what they have to say, even when they are more qualified to speak about the subject than you are. i'm about to the point of saying all us laymen should abandon this forum all together and let actual scientists speak on this subject. provided we get differing input about this and not a one sided arguement like as the usual routine is with the subject of global warming.

 

My grandfather had cancer many years ago as well. I watched it slowly kill him over the course of 18 months despite aggressive treatment. The notion that simply willing something not to harm you will prevent it from harming you is delusional, at best.

Of course I do not control the climate, nor do you. No individual controls the climate. Likewise, I do not control the economy, nor do you, nor any individual. However, our aggregate influence on the economy IS the economy. To argue that something is not controlled by a single person and therefore cannot be influenced by human action is ludicrous.

I’ve never hunted Passenger Pigeons, yet they were driven to extinction in a century through hunting and habitat loss. I don’t eat Cod, yet several Atlantic fisheries have collapsed and have shown no sign of recovery in the last 18 years. I’ve never cut down a Long-Leaf Pine, yet the Long-Leaf Pine forests/savannas of the Southeastern US have been reduced to less than 2% of their original extent.

No, it’s not silly to think that human activities can have profound influence on the world. It’s utterly foolish and frankly blind to argue that they cannot.

I nor anyone else has the ability to exert control over the formation of tornados. The best we can do with these is improve detection/forecasting and our response to them.

On the other end of the spectrum, we have absolute control over the release of CFC’s into the environment, which destroy stratospheric ozone.

Hurricanes, droughts, floods, and some other weather related phenomena clearly change when the climate changes. Since our activities are causing the climate to warm, why would I NOT worry about the effects on hurricanes, droughts, floods, etc.?

Simply because you make the assertion doesn’t make it true. We clearly have the capacity to strongly affect climate. Pump a ton of sulfate aerosols into the tropical atmosphere and you can cool the climate substantially. No one doubts that. We clearly have the capacity to alter climate.

Is that a serious question? OF COURSE the fact that dissent among experts is extremely rare makes that dissent less credible, just as dissent among doctors about the effects of smoking on health makes it less credible, or the dissent among atmospheric chemists of the effects of CFC’s on stratospheric ozone makes it less credible. As we know very well, those people were (are) simply wrong.

Nonsense—there is no evidence to suggest that the increase in greenhouse gases, produced by human activities, is not warming and will not continue to warm the climate. There is propaganda, there is misrepresentation of science, but there is no evidence.

Ha, no, that wasn’t a real threat. However, a real threat such as the threat of nuclear war with Russia during the Cold War was certainly something to be concerned with.

Ha, and what happened to them? Though they did not have the capacity to do anything about it, if they DID have the capacity to do something about or deal more effectively with major climate change (or whatever factors did do them in) perhaps they wouldn’t have gone extinct (save the birds).

I’m honestly dumbstruck you’d present this as an argument. What good would it have done the dinosaurs to worry about the environment? Did you think about this at all before writing it?

I don’t understand what you mean to say here.

No, that takes international cooperation—the kind most of the world is engaged in, but which the US has decided to pass on to date.

The IPCC? They’re funded by the UN. Do you really want to start talking about money trails?

Ha, just the opposite. A reasonable percentage of the American public isn’t all that concerned with climate change. An economic report commissioned by the British government recently suggests the costs of inaction to combat climate change will be on the order of the Great Depression and both World Wars combined. People aren’t paranoid, they’re complacent.

Yep, and fire existed before we did too, but that doesn’t stop me from lighting a match nor, accidentally, setting off a massive wild fire. Simply because the climate has warmed and cooled before we began influencing it (indeed, before we were here to do so) in no way implies that we cannot influence it.

Ha, I’m leaving the hair on my head.

Agreed, but cataclysms are rare. I’d prefer to deal with as few of them as possible. For example, when driving down the highway, I don’t run my car off the road and wrap it around a tree simply because it’s happened before. The fact that other people have done it in no way entices me to do it. Likewise, people have lost their homes to fire but I have yet to set my home ablaze, people have been shot but I have yet to send a round off at myself, and all other manner of terrible things have happened before. That is no reason not to try to avoid those terrible things.

To sum it up in a nutshell, it’s easily within our grasp.

 

You can't claim that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community is fundamentally mistaken on climate change and then defend the "naysayers" on the basis that they are members of the scientific community and therefore qualified to speak about the subject. This is an absurd contradiction in your thinking.

Being a "member of the scientific community" does not automatically make your views right. It's not the 'authority' or 'status' of the messenger which should lead you to believe a message, it's the strength of the evidence on which the message is based. Yes there is a vanishingly tiny minority of "members of the scientific community" who do not think anthropogenic climate change is happening (I'm sure you could find members of the scientific community who believe all sorts of things if you tried...), and a larger but still fairly small minority who disagree on the projected forcing effects of anthropogenic factors. Of course we can and should continue to quibble on the details and refine our understanding and our projections, which is exactly what is being done by climate scientists around the world, but the strength of the evidence we have so far speaks for itself, and is larger than any individual, institution or movement. You should read up on it sometime

Well that's unlikely to happen here precisely because this forum is so full of conspiracy theorists and others who simply have no understanding of any of the issues (but like to shout their ignorance very loudly). But yes the evidence should, and does, speak for itself. With people like Chris and a few others here highlighting and explaining for the layman what "actual scientists" are saying on the subject, I think we're doing pretty well, albeit to people who are pushing other agendas/conspiracies and don't really listen to or understand much, if any, of the scientific debate...

 

You're fucking nuts.

 

I'm mixed race. I'm the least racist person here. Infact I even argue against flippant racist language here, bi-monthly.
These facts you will not have known...so I hope you take them on board.

These comments make me think you are nuts:

Actually, pretty much every line makes me think you are nuts.
If you want me to have a conversation with you, I will...but judging by your comments it will not go far...I'm just not on your page.

It was kinda rude calling you nuts...sorry.
But, you seem to be...

 

All factories - where ever they may well be - are polluting.
It has taken India and China longer to pull their fingers out, but that is because they followed the American doctrine of: Growth is more important than the environment.

It is totally bizzare you are making this a race issue...it isn't

No.
You can't fit the racist tag on me.
It just does not fit.
I was just saying what I do to curb somewhat racist or just flippant racist comments that get posted around here.
I maybe a little paranoid about it.
But, hey, somebody has to be.
Not so nice to see your radar for racism is not working very well.

What on earth are you talking about?

 

Marxist? Good grief, no.
America being one of the biggest abstainers of the Kyoto agreement, decided it would put it's economy in front of the environment.
It is just a fact, chap.
That is what India and China are doing.
Hence the comparison.

Prejudicial language and behaviour based on nothing more than colour.
The flippant racist language here, generally relates to some people using the N word...willy nilly.
I don't like that.

Anybody any ethnicity.
I generally bump into white people talkng down about non-white people, though.

Yes.

If you are just regurgitating other peoples opinions...
I'd stop.
Make up your own mind.

You could if I was making little or no sense.
That last remark - of yours - made no sense.
Make some sense of it if you can.
Be clear.

 

yes.

 

This is my first visit to the global warming forums and I must say... Skip!! WHAT THE HELL? Not to be rude or anything but, are you now banning our right to free thought on this website? You're basically saying that our right to disagree with the global warming 'THEORY' shouldn't be allowed except in this 'propaganda' forum. I understand that you run the website and all but I thought you were different but i guess i was wrong. You have disappointed me greatly.

 

:cheers2:

 

Skip, I was mistaken, sorry. I misinterpreted this subforum. I hope you will accept my appologies.

 

Oh yah, the same Erlich who said:

"In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish. -- Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day (1970) (in regards to....GLOBAL COOLING, not warming..)

Future Shock had almost nothing to do with pollution or global warming too, by the way.

 

Global warming my ass!

Just got 22 inches on snow here in New York.

 

There is and has been too much reading and looking into the problems of essentialized Practice of expecting a threat or perhaps aspiration of Revolution in Science.

So now we look into the evolution of Art. No; the cry again. For Art it should be revolution.

I believe Bruce Springstein, Neil Young and so forth agree.

 

Look, whether global warming exists or not, doesn't it make sense to try and keep our planet clean? I mean, who likes living in a shithole? It doesn't take much to take care of our planet. Pick up your shit, watch what you pump into the air, don't toss shit on the ground when you're done, etc. And clean enery makes sense too. I mean, our entire world economy is based on black goo that is quickly being depleted. It makes logical sense that we look into green technology and find things that give us as much power without the smog or wars. Its kinda like a kid with a toy. It isn't like that that toy is the last toy on the planet, you can always give him another one. But you still teach your children to take care of it and not smash it against walls or throw it around. Regardless of the facts behind global warming, we all need to take care of this planet. Because unlike toys, we don't get another earth.

 

I love this post. You manage to singlehandedly disprove the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Or to spectacularly misunderstand it, I forget which

 

Yeah. I don't believe humans are causing the climate to change, but saying 'it's cold where I am' certainly doesn't disprove it. It's cold as a bitch here too, but it's warmer than most years.

 

more colder weather IS CAUSED BY global warming.
because mid ocean evaporation puts more moisture in the air.

 

unusual weather != global warming. People have had crazy ass unpredicatable weather since the dawn of time. People have also been screaming the "sky is falling" or whatever appropriately vogue apocalyptic scenario since the dawn of time, the sky is yet to fall.