The Great Global Warming Swindle

[War Wagon]

preaching to the choir.

Yeah 88, we get that.

Go find another dead horse to beat.

[huh?]

I don't know, have there been any peer reviewed scietific studies that say it's a hoax? Honest question. Toss me a link please.

[mouse]

You want us to debunk a global warming theory with another theory? I can see polar bears looking for some ice they didn't have to look for 10 years ago. More people died of heat during the last 3 summers than anytime before.

The coast line is rising due to melting ice caps. Who needs another movie/theory.......... I have eyes.

[PSUFAN]

I wonder what would happen if Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" had to go through the same scrutiny?

I have yet to scrutinize it. Is it something you recommend? I guess I could watch the both of them and compare...

[smackaholic]

You want us to debunk a global warming theory with another theory? I can see polar bears looking for some ice they didn't have to look for 10 years ago. More people died of heat during the last 3 summers than anytime before.

The coast line is rising due to melting ice caps. Who needs another movie/theory.......... I have eyes.

perhaps the polar bears could just fukking move like all the folks in the bay area that don't want to pay 800K for a utility shed.

There are more people, dumbass. More importantly, there are WAY FUKKING MORE old folks, who are generally the victims of the evil haliburton heatwaveatron 2000.

Yup, the sea level has risen....over 400 ft since the last ice age. And guess what almost every foot of it happened before recorded history. Take a look at the graph on the wikipedia site. They show a smaller section from 1880 or so to the present and during that period we have had a pretty steady but small rising trend. During that same period, man's CO2 release into the atmosphere has increased by a staggering amount. So why don't we see a large acceleration? Also, why are there rather rythmic dips in the level? Could it be that big yellow thing in the sky? You know, the source of all this heat? Nooooo, it can't be that because if it is, congress won't be able to fix it. Gotta be evil white euro dudes (and jews) causing it.

[Dinsdale]

"The Great Global Warming Swindle"


I'm sure it didn't cover anything we haven't heard a thousand times already, but I dig the catchy title. A little tongue-in-cheek British humor.

[Dinsdale]

Pretty deece column in the local fishwrap.

Maybe you've noticed this, too. The less sure people are of their views, the more inclined they are to name-call, yell and bully. I've noticed this when it comes to religion and politics and life in general, but I've had trouble getting used to it when it comes to science.

Science is supposed to be about irreducible facts, the discipline of the scientific method, repeatable experiments, rigorous analysis and solid conclusions rather than sound bites, insults, threats and public relations campaigns. But look at global warming and climate change.

The Weather Channel's top climatologist says broadcast meteorologists who voice skepticism about man-made climate change should be stripped of their certification. A renewable energy lobbyist writes an e-mail to a climate change skeptic saying he intends "to destroy your career." The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's James Hansen, a global warming guru, calls skeptics "court jesters," and Al Gore likens them to "flat-Earth" advocates. The bid to enforce a global warming consensus has added "climate-change deniers" to our lexicon. You know, like "Holocaust deniers."

Curious. Why all the loaded verbiage? Why the insistence on consensus in an arena that relies on challenging conventional wisdom? Why all the anger?

Why, indeed. This past week witnessed the great breakup not of the icebergs, but of the global warming consensus. What's existed beneath the surface, apparent to those who dug, exploded into public view.

"With this issue ... we kick off a debate concerning one of the main conclusions of the [the United Nations] International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ...," wrote Jeffrey Marque, editor of The American Physical Society's Physics & Society forum. "There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution."

Imagine, a debate because a considerable presence within the scientific community disputes that man-made (anthropogenic) emissions are primarily responsible for global warming. Either court jesters and flat-Earthers are making a comeback or the climate change consensus isn't what it's cracked up to be. I'll bet on the latter. Marque kicks off the debate with the publication of a paper by Britain's Christopher Monckton on the IPCC's errors and exaggerations in estimating the impact of greenhouse gas emissions on the rate of temperature change.

Elsewhere, a former climate change alarmist detailed what you might call his change of science. David Evans was a consultant to the "Australian Greenhouse Office" from 1999 to 2005. He helped craft the carbon accounting model measuring Australia's Kyoto Protocol compliance.

"When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good ...," he wrote recently in The Australian. "The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? ... But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming."

Evans notes a few telling facts: One, scientists have looked for hot spots in the atmosphere -- places where a possible cause of global warming occurs first and most -- and have found ... none: "If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming." Two, he points out what scientists have found: Ice-core samples showing the six global warmings over the past half-million years occurred an average of 800 years before any uptick in atmospheric carbon, satellite temperature readings showing the recent warming trend ended in 2001, and the temperature has fallen about 0.6 C in the past year -- to the 1980 level.

But isn't the sky falling or, at least, the Arctic ice melting? According to the latest data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center, "sea ice extent" on July 16 was 3.44 million square miles -- a half-million square miles more than what it was in July 2007.

The only thing that's heating up, it seems, is the debate about global warming, and a good thing, too.

Maybe it's time we all chill out.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Global warming...Global warming...your eyelids are getting heavy...reeeelax...Global warming...the surge is working...there is no war in Iraq...go to sleep...Global Warming...sleep...sleep...Global Warming....

[Diogenes]

An Inconvenient article with a few Inconvenient links...

http://abetterblogsite.com/public/blog/143429" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[LTS TRN 2]

So, the dutiful march of stooges is called to order? And...leading the way, a mannaquin Chuck Heston speaking from the grave, reciting a bizarre Michael Crichton essay on the Rusp Limpdick show?

That's what you've got? The equivalent of an intellectual poached-egg handshake? Sad.

The Crichton logic is inane if only because its ONLY rationalization for denying the quick and drastic effects of Global Warming is that "life" will somehow crawl back. Sure, no humans, but "life" will reappear, so it's okay to pooh pooh those scary environmental whackos. This is what you (Limpdick parrots all) hunker behind?

Well, don't let me interrupt your circle jerk :P

(but, when you, you know, take a break, check out this companian piece to Chuck's science interests)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wox3Sfz ... re=related" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[LTS TRN 2]

You'd be the first slow blubber I'd eat--and I will if I get a hold of you....

[Ang]

Great, we can all cluster around our discussions about polar bears, and believe me that just warms my heart...

But there is a step between what is now or the future that has thrown everyone off the mark. Seems at both ends of the discussion there is the idea that we need to get off oil, which we do....and there is a future without oil, which eventually there is. No one has addressed the transition, the "in between".

And someone I never expected to propose it has come up with it....I think it is well worth the read, extreme not only in the shift of idea, but also extremely practical, making it clear this is a transition to a long term solution, not the "end all" but the transition that is needed to get off the dime.

http://www.pickensplan.com/theplan/

[smackaholic]

there's a really good reason we ai't doing it everywhere.

It isn't practical in most places.

Steam from the earf is great, so long as you are in yellowstone or iceland and, I'm sure a number of other places. Iceland already does put it to very good use.

I believe we will be using geothermal extensively in the future, but, not so much to generate 'lectricity directly. We will use it for home cooling and heating. Such systems already exist and if earl prices don't back off soon, you prolly will see quite a bit of it.

Funny how that market driven economy works, if you just let it.

[Bizzarofelice]

As far as energy for electricity, it's pretty simple. Steam from the earth ('sup Old Faithful) will probably be endless. Don't know why we aren't tapping that everywhere.....

You seem so much smarter when you are quiet.

[titlover]

geothermal heating for your crib. should be the wave of the future.

[JayDuck]

The argument over global warming/climate change totally misses the point, on both sides of the issue.

There is no question that the world has gone through major climate changes throughout it's entire history and there is little doubt that we are experiencing some climate change right now. There's plenty of evidence suggest that we are inbetween Ice Ages right now and overdue for another one, regardless of anything man has done to the world.

But arguing over who's to blame is fucking stupid. Regardless of whoever, or whatever, is at fault if major climate change occurs...if we go into another Ice Age, our current relatively comfortable way of life is fucked. Its probably no coincidence that the rise of man, particularly at a technoogical level, has come inbetween Ice Ages. And now, regardless of why the change is happening, we have some knowledge and technology to possibly effect the climate change of the planet in a way that is best for us, or at least we should be working towards that goal.

Just sitting back and saying "If its God's will to change the climate, so be it" is bullshit. Fuck that. We've been attempting to control our environment for thousands of years and we should be more capable of effecting it now than ever. I don't give a fuck which side is "right" about Global Warming. Like almost everything else in the world, its almost certainly the case that neither side is right and the truth is somewhere in the middle. I do give a fuck about, if we can do something about it and, if not, figuring out a way to do something about it.

[Mikey]

In'sh'Allah

[JayDuck]

I do give a fuck about, if we can do something about it and, if not, figuring out a way to do something about it.

Maybe we just ought to let it be. We have no business fucking around with something we so very clearly do not understand.

If we had that attitude we'd still be eating raw meat & killing things with sticks.

We've fucked around with things we don't clearly understand throughout our entire history, if it has the possibility to make our lives easier, more convenient, or more successfull. Why we should all of a sudden stop now makes no sense.

[Dinsdale]

I believe we will be using geothermal extensively in the future

We have no business fucking around with something we so very clearly do not understand.

So, who here can tell me how much water you can pump below the earth's crust before it starts æffecting the expansion/contraction of the plates, and their motion?

Anyone?


Yeah, me either. I'll bet Al Gore knows... once he invests in a geothermal energy company, anyway.

[JayDuck]

We've fucked around with things we don't clearly understand throughout our entire history, if it has the possibility to make our lives easier, more convenient, or more successfull. Why we should all of a sudden stop now makes no sense.

Because fucking around with the climate effects just a little bit more than the people who are doing the tinkering, so caution is in order.

What is your fucking hurry?

Caution and not doing anything are not the same thing.

[JayDuck]

Caution and not doing anything are not the same thing.

They certainly are when there is nothing that needs to be done.

Again, what's the rush?

Nothing needs to be done, only if you want the climate to change.

As for the rush, well, its going to be easier to prevent climate change than it is to reverse it, or to protect us from it, once we are in the next Ice Age.

[Dinsdale]

Nothing needs to be done, only if you want the climate to change.

We "did nothing," and the temperature dropped... rather dramitally over the last year.

In the Early Days of Global Warming Alarmism, the evidence was pretty compelling, and only a fool didn't give it consideration. But then the Algores said "and if you give me all of your money, I can solve this!" That raised eyebrows, and got some real scientists focusing on the issue. Extensive, peer-reviewed research showed there was sooooo much more to the story than a few CO2 molecules, that policy changes and COMMODITY TRADING was a ridiculous response.

And lo and behold, the "doubters" were apparently right all along... or so current data leads anyone who can separate politics from science is led to believe.

[JayDuck]

You don't prevent climate change. You adapt to it...or you don't. Our prehistoric ancestors managed to weather an ice age, so I think we'll pull through just fine. The human herd needs to be culled anyway. An ice age might be just the ticket.

Sure, and many thousands of years ago, you would have been saying that we need to adapt to the buffalo herds migrations, or adapt to the where the vegetables were growing.

Fuck that. We're humans, and our biggest evolutionary advantage is our intelligence. We don't adapt to our surroundings, we force it to apapt to what we want. We said "fuck following herds" and bred the wildness out of cows and livestock. We said "fuck foraging" and crossbred plants to create our own veggies and farms.

We're not going to allow mile high glaciers to come down as far as the Northern States, like they did in the last Ice Age.

[Sirfindafold]

Some girls beg &
Some girls borrow,
Some girls lead &
some girls follow,
some bring joy &
some bring sorrow,
but the best damn
girls suck then swallow!

[Dinsdale]

We're not going to allow mile high glaciers to come down as far as the Northern States, like they did in the last Ice Age.

Ice ages are caused by catastrophic events which mankind has no control over. Although there's folks that have tenative plans to try and divert asteroids/meteors from hitting the earth, which is a major source of major cooling events.

But good luck stopping volcanoes from erupting -- the other major cause of dramatic, sudden cooling.

[JayDuck]

Ice ages are caused by catastrophic events which mankind has no control over. Although there's folks that have tenative plans to try and divert asteroids/meteors from hitting the earth, which is a major source of major cooling events.

But good luck stopping volcanoes from erupting -- the other major cause of dramatic, sudden cooling.

Wow. That's an interesting "fact" that I'm sure you've researched and proven to be true.

You watch a lot of Discovery Channel specials?

[JayDuck]

We're not going to allow mile high glaciers to come down as far as the Northern States, like they did in the last Ice Age.

Wanna bet? Get a clue, guy.

Yes I want to bet.

[Dinsdale]

Wow. That's an interesting "fact" that I'm sure you've researched and proven to be true.

You watch a lot of Discovery Channel specials?

No, I crack a fucking book on an occasion.

If you don't know what causes ice ages, I suggest you crack a book or two for yourself.


If you're going this route, you could at least drop the name William Ruddiman into your post. He appears to be your champion.

[LTS TRN 2]

The problem with all of these Global Warming Deniers is that the "experts" among them are all paid shills of the oil industry, or just straight up nut jobs. Perhaps you saw the recent 60-Minutes piece where a true "expert" was simply saying "they're wrong." It turns out this same "expert" (and really solid credentials here, Head of Research at Harvard, or somesuch) had also gone on record as insisting that smoking does not cause cancer. And yes, he had been paid by the tobaccoo industry for that "expert" opinion as well.

Here among the clodden Limpdick parrot squad, we are offered the utterly ludicrous Chrichton theory of "man's insignificance" in terms of influencing the climate and health of the planet.

Does anyone really believe a word of this? And the caveat of this preposterous nonsense is that even if we do entirely fuck up the atmosphere, etc., then somehow "life" will go on--and therefore (huh?) it somehow doesn't matter.

The OIL INDUSTRY is backing all of these pathetic hacks, and needless to say the braying right-wing radio creeps are similarly disposed to suck off corporate America and then retire to their own enclave of conspicuous luxury, etc.

As for the typical Rovian smears to the effect that ALGORE is somehow "in it for the money," this is a complete joke, with nothing whatever to support it.

Whether or not it's already too late is another question.

[Diogenes]

...we are offered the utterly ludicrous Chrichton theory of "man's insignificance" in terms of influencing the climate and health of the planet.

Does anyone really believe a word of this? And the caveat of this preposterous nonsense is that even if we do entirely fuck up the atmosphere, etc., then somehow "life" will go on--and therefore (huh?) it somehow doesn't matter.

The OIL INDUSTRY is backing all of these pathetic hacks...

So Michael Chrichton is a pawn of the OIL INDUSTRY?


No wonder his books sell.

[LTS TRN 2]

Crichton writes good tight books on interesting important subjects. You should read one sometime.

Well...if Chuck fucking Heston is reading a selected paragrapgh or two on the Rusp Limpdick show....well?

Let me ask you a direct qustion, "Diogenes" (and never was a name more abused): are you really as pathetic as you appear?

[Diogenes]

Crichton writes good tight books on interesting important subjects. You should read one sometime.

I have. This one is pretty good...

Well...if Chuck fucking Heston is reading a selected paragrapgh or two on the Rusp Limpdick show....well?

I have know idea what you're babbling about, but Chrichton makes good sense...

http://www.crichton-official.com/speech ... uture.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;