OT: Global Warming - Real or Contrived?

[RandyM]

Yes I have seen this. But we are probably reading it two very different ways.

It doesn't matter whether your message is right or wrong, you have to SELL it to the public. We could argue about any contemporary issue as passionately as we like but when it comes down to public opinion, it's whichever side does a better sales job, regardless of whether what they are selling is true. Betamax was superior to VHS, but Sony couldn't SELL it, so they lost.

You take this guy's comment to mean "we're wrong and we have to lie". I take it to say "the scientific community is closing ranks, silencing dissenters, etc, and we're running out of time to sell our side of it". As far as "challenging science" goes, I'm guessing you would interpret that to mean that he wants to challenge science with just PR. I interpret it to mean that science can and should be challenged, but I also think it has to be challenged with science that opposes it (and it IS being opposed, in spite of attempts to marginalize, intimidate and suppress those scientists who dare question orthodoxy). But yes, if the majority on this issue is successful in destroying the careers and reputations of all who oppose the 'consensus' viewpoint, then there will be no tool left with which to challenge the global warming alarmists, so yes the public has to be sold on the fact that there IS still dissent, and not to just blindly take what is fed to you as fact. I 100% agree that they need to get this message out, because right now the approach by the enviro-left is to say: "there is no debate, there is no debate, there is no debate" (e.g. repeat a lie often enough and people will accept it as fact).

That is what is going on. Rather than engage in a debate, just say the science is settled, there is no debate and whoever still disagrees is a crank right wing extremist being given money by the evil oil industry. Lather, rinse repeat. Bang it into peoples' heads. It's been done successfully for so long it is THE way to win the propaganda war. After all, we now have a public that has swallowed any number of lies because myths were repeated so often and so stridently by the media that no one dares say anything anymore. Remember the outcry against DDT? How many millions of Africans have paid the ultimate price for the fallout from THAT enviro-scare?

So, yeah, like it or not, you have to get into the propaganda pit or you will lose, whether you are right or you are wrong. You will still lose. I hate it. But that's life.

Right now, the left is winning the propaganda war and are doing a good job of appealing to peoples' emotions and egos ("we are killing the planet!!! We have to DO something to save it!"). And the right has NOT done a good job, for the most part, of selling their side of it.

As I said though, it's all academic for the time being. Time will prove me right as the warming cycle ends and a cooling cycle begins. The real question will be how much damage the the environmental side of it will do to our economy, our sovereignty and our freedom before we realize we've been collectively had.

Randy

[Brando70]

I didn't want to reveal this here, but the clever detective work of others has left me no choice.

Global warming is a big conspiracy. It is a joint production of the Freemasons and Illuminati, in conjunction with NPR, the National Science Foundation, and Al Franken. The point is to destroy capitalism and replace it with a barter system based on Folger's Crystals. This plays into the hands of the Chinese, who are secretly cornering the market on Folger's, with the help of Iran and Hugo Chavez. By controlling the coffee, they will control every man and woman that has to get up for work in the morning. We will all become their slaves.

A group of albino minions does the work of this global warming society. They secretly control the peer review of the journals and have infiltrated the HR departments of all major universities and research institutions in the United States. They also work as copy editors at most newspapers, replacing stories about water skiing squirrels with exposes on global warming. They are also buying off key members of the media, Congress, governmental environmental agencies, and science foundations.

By getting America to waste precious resources on environmental regulation, our Folger's Crystals production will severely suffer, allowing the Chinese to eventually pass us as the world's superpower.

I am revealing this because one of the albinos, who only goes by the name of Bernie, is holding my family hostage. I hope by getting the truth out, I can save them.

In the meantime, watch the skies! And horde your coffee, for it will one day be the Stimulant of Liberty!

[Teal]

So who politicized this issue?

Here is one clue:

The memo, by the leading Republican consultant Frank Luntz, concedes the party has "lost the environmental communications battle" and urges its politicians to encourage the public in the view that there is no scientific consensus on the dangers of greenhouse gases.


"The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science," Mr Luntz writes in the memo, obtained by the Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based campaigning organisation.
"Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly.

"Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,1 ... 78,00.html

Rest of the industrialized nations have no "lack of scientific certainty" on this. Strange how that works out, huh?[/b]

I don't give a damn who politicized the issue...no one 'politicized' it, it has always been political. And as far as 'scientific certainty' is concerned...just a few hundred years ago, the consensus was that the earth was flat; just a couple of decades ago, the scientific consensus (with lots and lots of political posturing to go with it) declared that we were entering a global cooling that would send us back to the ice age.

[Teal]

I didn't want to reveal this here, but the clever detective work of others has left me no choice.

Global warming is a big conspiracy. It is a joint production of the Freemasons and Illuminati, in conjunction with NPR, the National Science Foundation, and Al Franken. The point is to destroy capitalism and replace it with a barter system based on Folger's Crystals. This plays into the hands of the Chinese, who are secretly cornering the market on Folger's, with the help of Iran and Hugo Chavez. By controlling the coffee, they will control every man and woman that has to get up for work in the morning. We will all become their slaves.

A group of albino minions does the work of this global warming society. They secretly control the peer review of the journals and have infiltrated the HR departments of all major universities and research institutions in the United States. They also work as copy editors at most newspapers, replacing stories about water skiing squirrels with exposes on global warming. They are also buying off key members of the media, Congress, governmental environmental agencies, and science foundations.

By getting America to waste precious resources on environmental regulation, our Folger's Crystals production will severely suffer, allowing the Chinese to eventually pass us as the world's superpower.

I am revealing this because one of the albinos, who only goes by the name of Bernie, is holding my family hostage. I hope by getting the truth out, I can save them.

In the meantime, watch the skies! And horde your coffee, for it will one day be the Stimulant of Liberty!

That's funny...WEIRD, but funny...

[wco81]

http://syndication.nationaljournal.com/ ... NJlogo.pdf

[Jared]

I don't give a damn who politicized the issue...no one 'politicized' it, it has always been political. And as far as 'scientific certainty' is concerned...just a few hundred years ago, the consensus was that the earth was flat; just a couple of decades ago, the scientific consensus (with lots and lots of political posturing to go with it) declared that we were entering a global cooling that would send us back to the ice age.

Teal,

There wasn't really a scientific consensus back when people thought the world was flat, primarily because those people weren't using the scientific method. And again, the scientific consensus in the 70s was never that we were in a global cooling stage...the media (as they do sometimes) hyped up some stuff that was never close to the scientific consensus. Here is a review of this topic.

As for the politicization, yes, it's become a political topic because the changes that need (or don't need) to be made can be made via changes in public policy. However, just because the issue has become politicized doesn't mean that the debate is moot, neither side is right, etc. That's where a clear examination of the science behind the claims made by each side is of paramount importance.

[matthewk]

So who politicized this issue?

Here is one clue:

The memo, by the leading Republican consultant Frank Luntz, concedes the party has "lost the environmental communications battle" and urges its politicians to encourage the public in the view that there is no scientific consensus on the dangers of greenhouse gases.


"The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science," Mr Luntz writes in the memo, obtained by the Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based campaigning organisation.
"Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly.

"Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,1 ... 78,00.html

Rest of the industrialized nations have no "lack of scientific certainty" on this. Strange how that works out, huh?[/b]

I don't give a damn who politicized the issue...no one 'politicized' it, it has always been political. And as far as 'scientific certainty' is concerned...just a few hundred years ago, the consensus was that the earth was flat; just a couple of decades ago, the scientific consensus (with lots and lots of political posturing to go with it) declared that we were entering a global cooling that would send us back to the ice age.

DAMN! You beat me to it! I was just going to reply saying that Europeans also thought the Earth was flat

I agree that no ONE person politicized it. It has been a politcal issue for a long time. If I was really bored, I bet I could find a similar article that basically replaces "Republican" with "Democrat" and flips the argument.

I have seen it mentioned at least twice in this thread that the world is in agreement, but we (USA) are the only ones arguing the point. Care to post the link where this was voted on by the UN? I know there's a report out there, but does that really represent what the other countries think, or is it just hwat this group of scientists, who happen to be from a number of countries thinks?

[webdanzer]

I didn't want to reveal this here, but the clever detective work of others has left me no choice.

Global warming is a big conspiracy. It is a joint production of the Freemasons and Illuminati, in conjunction with NPR, the National Science Foundation, and Al Franken. The point is to destroy capitalism and replace it with a barter system based on Folger's Crystals. This plays into the hands of the Chinese, who are secretly cornering the market on Folger's, with the help of Iran and Hugo Chavez. By controlling the coffee, they will control every man and woman that has to get up for work in the morning. We will all become their slaves.

A group of albino minions does the work of this global warming society. They secretly control the peer review of the journals and have infiltrated the HR departments of all major universities and research institutions in the United States. They also work as copy editors at most newspapers, replacing stories about water skiing squirrels with exposes on global warming. They are also buying off key members of the media, Congress, governmental environmental agencies, and science foundations.

By getting America to waste precious resources on environmental regulation, our Folger's Crystals production will severely suffer, allowing the Chinese to eventually pass us as the world's superpower.

I am revealing this because one of the albinos, who only goes by the name of Bernie, is holding my family hostage. I hope by getting the truth out, I can save them.

In the meantime, watch the skies! And horde your coffee, for it will one day be the Stimulant of Liberty!

s***. We're already at 'Medium' on the Roast Meter. Things will be 'Dark' before we know it.

[Dave]

Global warming is a big conspiracy. It is a joint production of the Freemasons and Illuminati, in conjunction with NPR, the National Science Foundation, and Al Franken. The point is to destroy capitalism and replace it with a barter system based on Folger's Crystals. This plays into the hands of the Chinese, who are secretly cornering the market on Folger's, with the help of Iran and Hugo Chavez. By controlling the coffee, they will control every man and woman that has to get up for work in the morning. We will all become their slaves.

F*ck, I always knew P&G was getting too big for its own good.

Quick everyone, go buy Maxwell House before it's too late!

[wco81]

I bet I could find a similar article that basically replaces "Republican" with "Democrat" and flips the argument.

Bet accepted.

Let's see what you have.

[FatPitcher]

Teal,

There wasn't really a scientific consensus back when people thought the world was flat, primarily because those people weren't using the scientific method.

You could argue that the scientific method isn't being used for global warming issues, too, because there is really no good way to run controlled experiments on an entire planetary environment. There's a hypothesis out there, and there's a relatively small amount of reliable data, and we're already at the conclusion. That's not how it's supposed to work.

I'd be a little more willing to take the global warming crowd's word on the issue if a) they didn't have obvious ulterior motives, b) the ad hominem attacks on opponents were the exception rather than the rule c) their predications of catastrophe didn't keep falling flat, and d) Al Gore wasn't on their side.

I'm also not even convinced that moderate warming would have a harmful effect on the planet overall. Wasn't Greenland warm enough to grow crops at the point in time when the Vikings colonized it?

[Jared]

You could argue that the scientific method isn't being used for global warming issues, too, because there is really no good way to run controlled experiments on an entire planetary environment. There's a hypothesis out there, and there's a relatively small amount of reliable data, and we're already at the conclusion. That's not how it's supposed to work.

No. The scientific method can still be applied (and often is) in situations where you can't control specific variables. In these kinds of situations, you create a theory, make predictions based on hypotheses in the theory, and then collect data and see if it fits the theory or not. In complex systems, this often involves instantiating some of these hypotheses in a model. This is what happens in global warming science. It's more difficult to do than, say chemistry, since global warming scientists can't control variables. But it is definitely still science. Difficult science, but still science.

I'd be a little more willing to take the global warming crowd's word on the issue if a) they didn't have obvious ulterior motives, b) the ad hominem attacks on opponents were the exception rather than the rule c) their predications of catastrophe didn't keep falling flat, and d) Al Gore wasn't on their side.

Don't take their word on the issue....examine the studies, learn about the science behind it, and then evaluate it.

[FatPitcher]

You could argue that the scientific method isn't being used for global warming issues, too, because there is really no good way to run controlled experiments on an entire planetary environment. There's a hypothesis out there, and there's a relatively small amount of reliable data, and we're already at the conclusion. That's not how it's supposed to work.

No. The scientific method can still be applied (and often is) in situations where you can't control specific variables. In these kinds of situations, you create a theory, make predictions based on hypotheses in the theory, and then collect data and see if it fits the theory or not. In complex systems, this often involves instantiating some of these hypotheses in a model. This is what happens in global warming science. It's more difficult to do than, say chemistry, since global warming scientists can't control variables. But it is definitely still science. Difficult science, but still science.

I'd be a little more willing to take the global warming crowd's word on the issue if a) they didn't have obvious ulterior motives, b) the ad hominem attacks on opponents were the exception rather than the rule c) their predications of catastrophe didn't keep falling flat, and d) Al Gore wasn't on their side.

Don't take their word on the issue....examine the studies, learn about the science behind it, and then evaluate it.

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

There are two big issues that stand out:
1. The elimination of plausible alternatives
2. When data doesn't match the hypothesis (e.g., predictions made based on your hypothesis turn out to be wrong), you are supposed to change your hypothesis. That doesn't seem to be happening. Instead, those external factors, conveniently ignored (issue #1) previously, are suddenly used as excuses (El Nino did it!).

And learn the science behind it? Are you kidding? Without years of study, I'd just be a pretentious college dropout regurgitating crap in a way that I hope makes it sound like I know what I'm talking about. And the amount of effort I would like to put into learning about climate science is measured in much smaller units, impending global destruction or no. I spent years learning nuclear physics and power plant operation, and I never want to be that Greenpeace idiot who's never even heard the term "neutrino" preaching about how bad and dangerous nuclear power is.

I can't analyze the science of global warming, but it's not nearly so difficult to analyze self-righteous politicians and their weasely enablers.

[ruscosi]

I have a question. How can the polar ice caps melt and flood anything? Water expands up to 9% when it freezes. We have all seen the effects of this when a glass bottle bursts when frozen or when a pipe bursts during a cold snap. When it melts it contracts and takes up to 9% less volume.

If the polar ice caps melt, there would be less volume in the oceans and the water level will go down, right?

Have you ever seen a glass of liquid and ice overflow when the ice melts? Of course not.

The idea that there would be flooding if the ice caps melt makes absolutely no sense.

[kevinpars]

All of the anti regulation talk is great except for the fact that corporations don't exactly have a great reputation for self regulation. And it costs more to clean up a mess than it does to prevent it in the first place.

In a rare moment of candor when running for president, Al Gore said that nobody wanted to hear about environmental issues or cared about clean air and water until it personally became an issue to them. I think that is true. We live in a reactionary world.

Imagine a bad combination of events leading to an temperature inversion over a major American city that leads to the deaths of a significant number of people. Suddenly there will be a march on Washington with some self important actress speaking on Capital Hill with her children by her side. People will cry out about global warming (whether that had a thing to do with the specific event or not).

[EZSnappin]

I have a question. How can the polar ice caps melt and flood anything? Water expands up to 9% when it freezes. We have all seen the effects of this when a glass bottle bursts when frozen or when a pipe bursts during a cold snap. When it melts it contracts and takes up to 9% less volume.

If the polar ice caps melt, there would be less volume in the oceans and the water level will go down, right?

Have you ever seen a glass of liquid and ice overflow when the ice melts? Of course not.

The idea that there would be flooding if the ice caps melt makes absolutely no sense.

Much of the ice is landlocked in Greenland and Antarctica, blocked by large ice dams on the coast. If the ice dam melts or breaks off into the sea , the theory is the resulting land melt runoff will raise ocean levels.

[RandyM]

Governor Planning To Fire Oregon Climatologist for Taking Skeptical View of Warming...

http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/k ... 5d04a.html

What say you, Jared?

Randy

[matthewk]

I bet I could find a similar article that basically replaces "Republican" with "Democrat" and flips the argument.

Bet accepted.

Let's see what you have.

What I have is a life. Feel free to carry on without me.

[wco81]

I bet I could find a similar article that basically replaces "Republican" with "Democrat" and flips the argument.

Bet accepted.

Let's see what you have.

What I have is a life. Feel free to carry on without me.

In other words, you can't produce on your claim.

It would have taken less time to Google something like "politicization of global warming" than to post that weak alibi.

[matthewk]

I'm also not even convinced that moderate warming would have a harmful effect on the planet overall. Wasn't Greenland warm enough to grow crops at the point in time when the Vikings colonized it?

True. Which is why they named it Greenland. Funny, because this was mentioned on the radio last night.

So what has been the temperature change of the planet since 1900? I heard that it is 1/33 of 1 degree.

[JackB1]

You F*cking Dick!!!!!

Love & XXX
Dick Fain

It's f*cking cold here today in Central New York. Very f*cking cold.

Thought that was worth a mention as actual on-site, scientific research in this pissing match, er, debate.

Take care,
PK

[Jared]

Governor Planning To Fire Oregon Climatologist for Taking Skeptical View of Warming...

http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/k ... 5d04a.html

What say you, Jared?

Randy

I say....read the contents of the article before spouting off some errant headline you found on Newsbusters or some other site. Here's the rundown. Oregon State University created a job title: State Climatologist. The state of Oregon did not create that title. The state itself wants to have an actual state climatologist position appointed by the governor. The guy at OSU is NOT getting fired for his views.

And to clarify...I don't want to get back into a discussion about this with you, so I'm going to withhold my personal opinions on this. But if you post stuff that's not factual on these forums (i.e. saying he's getting fired when he's not), I feel compelled to clarify it.

[RandyM]

"So the governor wants to take that title from Taylor and make it a position that he would appoint."

"In an exclusive interview with KGW-TV, Governor Ted Kulongoski confirmed he wants to take that title from Taylor."

Whether firing someone involves them losing salary or just status/prestige, it's still a retaliation for him daring to go against the new Oregon state religion of global warming alarmism.

Spin it how you want. The global warming alarmists are getting drunk with their power and are using it to send a message to skeptics. "Shut up or else".

Randy

[RandyM]

FYI, there's an interesting rebuttal to an article written about this guy:

http://www.ocs.orst.edu/page_links/publ ... ponse.html

At this point, I think you seriously have to be drinking the global warming kool-aid to say the debate is over or that there is no dispute among scientists about the degree of impact humans have upon global warming.

I also thought it was interesting that the guy rides his bike to work every day and wishes most of his global warming advocate opponents did, too.

Randy

[matthewk]

What I have is a life. Feel free to carry on without me.

In other words, you can't produce on your claim.

It would have taken less time to Google something like "politicization of global warming" than to post that weak alibi.

Nice try, but I'm still not that bored. What's weak are your attempts to goad me into a link posting pissing match. I'd rather read the more intelligent debate going on between Randy and Jared than to argue with someone as yourself, who seems to want to start an argument rather than have a civilized debate.