Okay…up until the last few hundred years, the air and such was pristine by our standards. People lived until about age 35 or so, children usually died of starvation before age 10, and getting an infected tooth was often a death sentence. You got to live in a mud hut and scratch at the earth with plow all day or sit around praying that nothing would come and destroy your harvest, which often happened, and you and most around you died.
Some of you guys are too young to remember this… But there used to be scientists who argued that cigarette smoking doesn’t cause cancer. A lot of times, these scientists were funded by the tobacco companies.
Now we have a few scientists funded by the oil companies, who say that global warming isn’t a concern, or that humans don’t play a role, or that changes in the climate aren’t related to pollution.
On the other hand, there is 90% certainty that global warming is a man-made problem which is a long term threat to the planet.
I wonder how this statistic compares to the old question of whether cigarettes cause cancer?
Now we have a few scientists funded by the oil companies, who say that global warming isn’t a concern, or that humans don’t play a role, or that changes in the climate aren’t related to pollution.
On…[/quote]
This is the lie in your statement. Most scientists that are starting to speak out against the global warming fearmongering and exaggeration do not take one dime from oil/energy companies although people like Al Gore have set themselves up to make a fortune and be in power if the carbon credit trading schemes are enacted.
[i]The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) . . . summary indicates that the IPCC is “90% confident” that we have caused global warming. The summary further implies that if we double the concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, the IPCC is 90 percent onfident that we will cause further warming of 3? C /- 1.5? C.
But what do these statements of confidence really mean? They are not derived mathematically from the type of normal probability distributions that are used when, for example, determining the margin of error in a political poll (say, /- 5%).
IPCC estimates of “confidence” are really what we would mean by this word in everyday conversation?a subjective statement of opinion. This is a very big deal, since bounding the uncertainty in climate predictions is central to deciding what, if anything, we should do about them.[/i]
Also note that the way the IPCC report is drafted, it is not a consensus report of thousands of scientists, as people like to claim.
[i]Lindzen Says UN IPCC does not Reflect Thousands of Scientists ? Only a Dozen or so Scientists:
Senator Inhofe was absolutely right. All that’s coming out Friday is a summary for policymakers that is not prepared by scientists. Rob is wrong. It’s not 2,500 people offering their consensus, I participated in that.
Each person who is an author writes one or two pages in conjunction with someone else. They travel around the world several times a year for several years to write it and the summary for policymakers has the input of about 13 of the scientists, but ultimately, it is written by representatives of governments, of environmental organizations like the Union of Concerned Scientists, and industrial organizations, each seeking their own benefit.[/i]
Now we have a few scientists funded by the oil companies, who say that global warming isn’t a concern, or that humans don’t play a role, or that changes in the climate aren’t related to pollution.
On…
This is the lie in your statement. Most scientists that are starting to speak out against the global warming fearmongering and exaggeration do not take one dime from oil/energy companies although people like Al Gore have set themselves up to make a fortune and be in power if the carbon credit trading schemes are enacted. [/quote]
In that case, it’s more like a bet. You are betting 1/99 that man has nothing to do with global warming. I choose the other 99 scientists.
Ok, I drew those figures from my hat, but it approximates reality well enough.
[quote]karva wrote:
In that case, it’s more like a bet. You are betting 1/99 that man has nothing to do with global warming. I choose the other 99 scientists.
Ok, I drew those figures from my hat, but it approximates reality well enough.[/quote]
If you want to treat it like a bet you must not only look at the odds of winning but you must look at the potential payoff vs the potential losses.
Cutting CO2 emissions by an amount significant enough to impact the computer models would destroy our lifestyles. It would require us to 100% stop using “fossil fuels”.
If we keep emitting CO2 and global warming occurs we are looking at sea levels rising measured in inches, not the 20 feet Al Gore and the alarmists have been hyping.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
karva wrote:
In that case, it’s more like a bet. You are betting 1/99 that man has nothing to do with global warming. I choose the other 99 scientists.
Ok, I drew those figures from my hat, but it approximates reality well enough.
If you want to treat it like a bet you must not only look at the odds of winning but you must look at the potential payoff vs the potential losses.
Cutting CO2 emissions by an amount significant enough to impact the computer models would destroy our lifestyles. It would require us to 100% stop using “fossil fuels”.
If we keep emitting CO2 and global warming occurs we are looking at sea levels rising measured in inches, not the 20 feet Al Gore and the alarmists have been hyping.[/quote]
I’m under the impression, that you are a man that believes in the power of market forces. Because of this phenomena, global warming, I have turned from anti- to pro-nuclear power. Nuclear power shouldn’t hinder from investment in alternative energy-sources, though. And I mean heavy investement, oil companies are alredy spending considerable amounts on the subject, but it is not enough. It should be a top priority for the western world.
I haven’t seen Al gores movie. I know the subject well enough without it.
[quote]karva wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
karva wrote:
In that case, it’s more like a bet. You are betting 1/99 that man has nothing to do with global warming. I choose the other 99 scientists.
Ok, I drew those figures from my hat, but it approximates reality well enough.
If you want to treat it like a bet you must not only look at the odds of winning but you must look at the potential payoff vs the potential losses.
Cutting CO2 emissions by an amount significant enough to impact the computer models would destroy our lifestyles. It would require us to 100% stop using “fossil fuels”.
If we keep emitting CO2 and global warming occurs we are looking at sea levels rising measured in inches, not the 20 feet Al Gore and the alarmists have been hyping.
I’m under the impression, that you are a man that believes in the power of market forces. Because of this phenomena, global warming, I have turned from anti- to pro-nuclear power. Nuclear power shouldn’t hinder from investment in alternative energy-sources, though. And I mean heavy investement, oil companies are alredy spending considerable amounts on the subject, but it is not enough. It should be a top priority for the western world.
I haven’t seen Al gores movie. I know the subject well enough without it.[/quote]
Pro-nukes is a very sensible approach if you think CO2 is a problem. I don’t know how many we need to build to replace our fossil fuels but I am sure it is staggering.
The market forces will only work if every country signs on. With China starting up one new coal fired plant a week I think it is unlikely they will stop emitting CO2 but I am sure they would love us to stop.
…
Also note that the way the IPCC report is drafted, it is not a consensus report of thousands of scientists, as people like to claim.
…[/quote]
And that’s assuming you don’t differentiate between ideologies like post-normal science, pathological science, precautionary science, cargo cult science, consensus science, or any of the other “more legitimate” variants of the scientific method.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Pro-nukes is a very sensible approach if you think CO2 is a problem. I don’t know how many we need to build to replace our fossil fuels but I am sure it is staggering.
The market forces will only work if every country signs on. With China starting up one new coal fired plant a week I think it is unlikely they will stop emitting CO2 but I am sure they would love us to stop.[/quote]
It is staggering, allright. Fossil fuels are already in decline, or if you don’t buy the more pessimistic scenarios, they will be in a couple of years. Alternative fuels is not a fantasy work, it’s the future, if there is to be any. Fuck the chinese. The realities they are meeting are the same that europe and america have already met and have so far bypassed with fossil fuel. As the name fossil fuels implies, the supply wont be limitless.
[quote]Brad61 wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
I don’t know where FI has been hanging out but this has been the coldest winter in NJ since I moved here in 1998.
Congratulations.
But we’re talking about global warming. Little blips and local fluctuations aren’t relevant.
It’s also kind of like the stock market. You shouldn’t freak out (or celebrate wildly) after one good or bad day (or week, or month) Or in the case of the weather, one season. What you look at are the long term trends.
The long term trend is that the planet is getting warmer.
[/quote]
Right! Maybe we will get back to the place where Greenland was actually GREEN and not all ice and snow.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
This is the lie in your statement. Most scientists that are starting to speak out against the global warming fearmongering and exaggeration do not take one dime from oil/energy companies [/quote]
Really? “Most”?
Who are you referring to, specifically? Here’s who I’m referring to:
ExxonMobil has pumped more than $8 million into more than 40 think tanks; media outlets; and consumer, religious, and even civil rights groups that preach skepticism about the oncoming climate catastrophe. Herewith, a representative overview:
I wish I could cite a report from a source you’d like better, like Ann Coulter, but she has her head up wedged up her own ass.
OMFG I know!!! It’s all a big conspiracy!!! It’s a communist plot!!!
[quote]Brad61 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
This is the lie in your statement. Most scientists that are starting to speak out against the global warming fearmongering and exaggeration do not take one dime from oil/energy companies
Really? “Most”?
Who are you referring to, specifically? Here’s who I’m referring to:
[i]ExxonMobil has pumped more than $8 million into more than 40 think tanks; media outlets; and consumer, religious, and even civil rights groups that preach skepticism about the oncoming climate catastrophe.[/quote]
Which is a fraction of the money spent by the global warming fear mongers.
CO2 is not pollution. If you believe it is I suggest you stop generating it for one day.
ExxonMobil has pumped more than $8 million into more than 40 think tanks; media outlets; and consumer, religious, and even civil rights groups that preach skepticism about the oncoming climate catastrophe. Herewith, a representative overview:
[/quote]
Good fuck when are people going to quit quoting this soundbyte statistic?
1.) For the 2004-2005 biennium, the UNFCCC budget was $70M, 2001-2005 total income amounts to $160M and to the best of my knowledge, they don’t heat anyone’s home or get them to work and I’m pretty sure Ford and Toyota have spent more total in actually reducing emissions. The amount ExxonMobil spent was less than the UNFCCC’s 2003 budget surplus.
unfccc.int/resource/docs/2006/sbi/eng/14.pdf
Additionally, the ExxonMobil number keeps changing every time I hear them;
According to a report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, oil company ExxonMobil ‘has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.’ The report compares the tactics employed by the oil giant to those used by the tobacco industry in previous decades, and identifies key individuals who have worked on both campaigns. Would a ‘global warming controversy’ exist without the millions of dollars spent by fossil fuel companies to discredit scientific conclusions?
Maybe, since you guys are all so familiar with the statistics that get spewed, you should say something like you’re 95% certain ExxonMobil spent between $8 and $16M on anywhere from 40-45 organizations. At least then you’d be “correct”.
3.) Let’s take some examples from what you quoted;
ASU got $49.5K presumably because Robert C. Balling is a skeptic. So, because Robert Balling is a good scientist (the default position is skepticism) the entire University and everything they do or publish is discredited because they got the annual salary of two grad students? And this, of course, ignores things that make and keep grad students useful like healthcare, lab equipment, and administrative staff. Given the relative ratios the UNFCCC bought ten Ph.D.s, gave them staff and healthcare, and stocked their labs.
And AEI rebutted the Guardian’s assertion that they received $16M from ExxonMobil saying that either the numbers were considered as aggregates over protracted time or entirely fabricated. Given either case, no organization constitutes more than 1% of their operating budget. Being skeptical of GW, they can say something firm like 1% rather than 95% certainty of between .5 and 1%.
Seriously, $16M over 43 organizations and seven years is an $53K annual payment to each, enough to hire one graduate student and provide him/her with modest equipment and facilities. Hardly buying dissent.
Conspire- v. - To plan together secretly to commit an illegal or wrongful act or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.
As for the portion about ‘illegal’ it’s all dependent on mens rea. It’s funny that people who scream “groupthink” and “selective interpretation” (or conspiracy) when talking about the intelligence community wrt Iraq buy into the GW story so whole-heartedly.
Communism- n. - A system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
Would the UN be a democratically-elected federal republic? Because Kofi Annan wasn’t on my ballot.
I’m pretty sure the Soviets thought they were doing everyone a favor by seizing equipment and shutting down production too. At least the gas company knows my address and phone number and if I don’t like ExxonMobil for whatever reason, I can drive my car across the intersection and “vote” a tankful for BP.
As if everyone else’s shit doesn’t stink? Regulating pollution and cleaning it up is as American as apple pie too!
[quote]Brad61 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
This is the lie in your statement. Most scientists that are starting to speak out against the global warming fearmongering and exaggeration do not take one dime from oil/energy companies
Really? “Most”?
Who are you referring to, specifically? Here’s who I’m referring to:
ExxonMobil has pumped more than $8 million into more than 40 think tanks; media outlets; and consumer, religious, and even civil rights groups that preach skepticism about the oncoming climate catastrophe. Herewith, a representative overview:
I wish I could cite a report from a source you’d like better, like Ann Coulter, but she has her head up wedged up her own ass.
although people like Al Gore have set themselves up to make a fortune and be in power if the carbon credit trading schemes are enacted.
OMFG I know!!! It’s all a big conspiracy!!! It’s a communist plot!!!
Pollution is as American as apple pie!!!
[/quote]
And I suppose you think that Al Gore’s movie is just full of unbiased facts, because of course Al has no ulterior motive to bush global warming. Riiiiight!
I’d say political motives are more prevalent in the Global Warming scare than any other factor. Vote for me and I will save you from _____________ (you fill in the blank as it is different for each election).
[quote]Brad61 wrote:
You know what else (besides Global Warming) is a Communist Plot?
Flouridated water.[/quote]
Is this when you add flour to water when you’re baking?
Seriously, if you really want to disseminate this issue;
1.) The UN didn’t mandate fluoride worldwide. The US chose to adopt fluoridated water in some areas and managed not to imperialistically cram it down every other nation in the worlds’ throat whether they could afford to or not.
2.) America’s ‘successful’ oral hygiene is due much much more to widespread access to dental care and daily habits. Fluorinated water is of minuscule importance relatively.
You’re right soy is not a communist plot. Soy is any product derived from the soybean. Very good Brad.
1.) The UN didn’t mandate childproof caps worldwide. The US chose to adopt child proof caps and managed not to imperialistically cram it down every other nation in the worlds’ throat whether they could afford to or not.
2.) Children dying from drug overdoses is completely different in complexity, cost, magnitude, certainty, etc. etc. than GW. It’s like comparing apples to some theoretical descendant of oranges that, with man’s unwavering influence, have a good probability of existing 100 yrs. from now… except we have legions of oranges to study and five eons of agricultural experience.
3.) Child-proof caps don’t appreciably inhibit us from taking drugs or affect the amount of money and/or time it takes to use said drugs. Reduced carbon emissions can quite easily do all three.
The rest of your arguments are pretty much regurgitations along these same lines.
You’ve all heard of the Industrial Revolution? Well, the global warming nonsense is the ANTI-industrial revolution.
I love air conditioners, cars, furnaces, computers, just about any product of an industrial civilisation. I and almost all people will not give those things to prevent the planet from having a 3 degree heat wave. If the polar bears and penguins and other such beings can’t adapt to that, fuck 'em.