Is Man Made Global Warming A Hoax Now?

You ought to read more. Doesn't sound like you know much.

 

As I understand it, there is a consensus among the members of the us national academy of sciences, scientists world-wide, and climate scientists specifically that:

1. there has been a trend of increasing global temperatures

2. that these increases are connected to man-made sources, specifically greenhouse gas emissions

3. there are potentially catastrophic consequences from global warming

however, a year, or even several years of mild winters are not in themselves evidence of global warming.

even without global warming, one might expect there to be some mild or severe weather-related events


the Penn& Teller video is indeed "bullshit"

after the introduction and credits, there is video shown of protesters, who we are lead to believe are anti-global warming activists

are they? from the segments that I see from 1:11 to 1:12, the signs carried by the protesters appear to say "no war in Iraq" and "end the sanctions".

from 1:13 to 1:24, more protesters are shown, some burning american flags.

however, the only discernible signs that I see say "end washington's war on the world's poor"

are these environmental protesters? well, we are certainly lead to believe so, but there is no evidence that these are environmental protesters. also, I'm unaware of any environmentalist protests where flags have been burned.

yet the narration states "this might look like 1971, but actually, it's today."

"once again, people are taking to the streets to protest what they say is a global environmental catastrophe"

[my conclusion: the video creates a false association between flag burning and the environmental movement

it further tries to lead us to believe that global warming is a hoax based on the impression it creates of protesters, rather than an examination of scientific facts]

an environmental journalist is then set up. he declares that there is "no debate" about a range of global warming issues, which Penn declares to be "bullshit".

Technically, you could call it "bullshit" in so far as one could likely find someone to debate any point.

On the other hand, one might reasonably say "there is no debate that the earth is round", yet a critic might call that "bullshit".

a clip of Patrick Moore is shown immediately afterward. He says the phrase "they are using sensation, misinformation, and scare tactics". Of whom is he speaking?

The juxtaposition of film clips might lead one to believe that he is saying that anyone claiming that global warming is valid is "using sensation, misinformation, and scare tactics", but it's not clear of whom he is speaking, or about what issue.

He states some potentially valid criticisms of the environmental movement, in particular that it has been taken over by people with an anti-corporate agenda. That is different, however, from a criticism of the science of global warming itself.

It is also noteworthy that according to wikipedia, Patrick Moore is now a professional public relations consultant.

We are then presented with images of dancing hippies and people saying things about the environment that look dumb. They then demonstrate that if one sets out to intentionally mislead people, one may in some cases succeed (the H2O petition).

They wrap up their "commentary" by saying that "some people say" that global warming isn't happening at all, without actually saying who or on what grounds.

In short, this video leads one to believe that global warming is not a valid issue based on willfully misleading tactics. In particular, it focuses on environmental protesters themselves and misleading characterizations of them, rather than on climate science.

this video is an incredible load of bullshit

 

yeah, wait ten years and then revisit this "bullshit" episode. I promise you that it will have the same effect on you as watching a 1950's doctor endorsing a brand of cigarettes. There are some assholes in this world that will still be denying global warming when their beach front condos are under 15 feet of water. This problem isn't going to be solved with any human intervention. Nature will "right size" human consumption and population density and our grandchildren's grandchildren will curse our names, because they'll be the ones living in the hell we've created.

 

Global warming is a settled issue of Narcissism in the economy science distinguished from the altruism of natural environmental science. One aspect I find strange is the way automobile driving and the piping of oil across countries for that sustained process of commercial consumption seems to be alas part of the natural altruism side.:biker:

 

That's incomprehensible and yet obviously completely bonkers.

Are you on drugs?

 

Global Warming causes the Ethics of Resentment over the lack of human nature for the instruments we work in Nature with for Progress. We resent the wars in the World that way, and if there are not wars we resist the resentment in our instrumentally controlled Environment. It is instead that the nature is scientifically this or that; abstract nature instead.

 

Not at all.
It is illustrating the juxtaposition of the two seeming opposing sides in this issue, economic vs environmental.
What is strange is that our oil based economy gets a facade of being on the "altruistic" side by virtue of how we utilize it in our daily lives.




OMG!!!!


I actually understood Anaximenes.


I've been hanging around here too long.....

 

uuhhh, this one, maybe not so much...

 

Global warming causes the Earth's surface air temperatures to increase, causes the oceans to heat up, causes the ice to melt, causes the seasons' timing to creep, causes floods and droughts, causes the climate to change. These changes will disrupt rainfall patterns and negatively affect agriculture, resulting in mass starvation. These changes will raise sea levels by many feet and drive hundreds of millions from their homes. Both by the end of the century, plus other disasters, including ocean acidification

Anaximenes seems to be somewhat insane, and very definitely ignorant and clueless.