Climate Change denial lies explained

Originally posted by howardgee
Another of your sources is dicredited:

"Among the organisations that have been funded by Exxon are such well-known websites and lobby groups as ...the Centre for the Study of Carbon Dioxide"
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1875762,00.html

this removes all your co2science links as valid sources.

Any more lies you want to spread, evil spawn of Bush?

Toss names about all you like you little tosser, but you have not refuted the evidence. The facts still stand. Care to try again?

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
Moreover, it would be stupid to hamstring our economy when the Europeans can't even meet their obligations under the treaty and their participation has caused economic growth to stall. Lastly, why should he sign it when the Chinese, Indians and the developing countries will not be bound by it, yet those countries are the greatest polluters?

This is one argument that always fascinates me. Or actually several arguments.

First, the notion that 'we won't do anything at all until we find the perfect solution'. Surely, a step - or even an attempted step - in the right direction is better than staying put. No-one ever finished an essay by refusing to write the opening line.

Second, the notion that 'we'll do something when [insert your preferred name here] had done something'. Well, someone has to make the first move. America's always keen to lead by example when it SUITS. Instead, with climate change we get this petulant, childish attitude. Seriously, it's the way children behave.

And lastly, my favourite...

To hell with the economy. What use is an economy going to be when most of the planet is dead?

Originally posted by Wajoma
Isn't this whats happening in the article in post 1. There is one organisation trying to shut up another organisation.

Yes. That's why I quoted it.

Originally posted by orfeo
This is one argument that always fascinates me. Or actually several arguments.

First, the notion that 'we won't do anything at all until we find the perfect solution'. Surely, a step - or even an attempted step - in the right direction is better than staying put. No-one ever finished an essay by refusing to write the opening line.

Second, the notion t l with the economy. What use is an economy going to be when most of the planet is dead?

Hey Chicken Little, the sky isn’t falling. Computer climate modeling is wildly inaccurate, the hockey stick theory has been discredited, the timeline for measuring global warming is far too short to reach any conclusions, plus, over the years, the media has been wrong many times on this issue. First they report that a new ice age is upon us, now it’s global warming. Then global cooling. Eight years from now they’ll proclaim that global warming is causing global cooling.

However, if you’re so worried about the melting of the ice caps and the world ending in the apocalyptic scenarios played out in “The Day After,” don’t get your panties in a wad. In order for any of what was depicted by Hollywood in this disaster of a film, the earth would have to stop spinning on its axis. The melting of the icecaps is proceeding far slower than the global warming zealots think. It won’t be a problem for us or our progeny, or even our progeny’s progeny. Color me unconvinced.

My contention, as well as that of many scientists is that we don’t know that global warming is human-induced. So to act on mere feelings and in the spirit of egalitarianism to enact public policies that will destroy jobs, induce onerous taxes and disrupt everyone’s quality of life for the sake of reducing warming by .07 to .19 degrees Celsius 100 years from now sounds to me more like the height of folly. If you want to make a positive change in the world instead of being the victim of mass hysteria, why don’t you tell hypocrite Al Gore to reduce his carbon footprint?

http://algorescarbonfootprint.com/

Originally posted by howardgee
Another of your sources is dicredited:

"Among the organisations that have been funded by Exxon are such well-known websites and lobby groups as ...the Centre for the Study of Carbon Dioxide"
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1875762,00.html

this removes all your co2science links as valid sources.

Any more lies you want to spread, evil spawn of Bush?

Q. If currently all the good science and good organisations support the notion of irreversible climate change, then where does one go to get funding,if as a scientist you dont buy the world will fry in the next 100 years.

Its sort of like the medieval inquisition trialling witches all over again.

We say you're a witch!

But Im not.

Of course youll say that. You know we burn witches youll say anything not to be burned. Now where were we. So, tell us about you being a witch.

Look Ill take a test anything. I can prove Im not a witch.

Okay sit on this chair and well tie you up and if you can survive being kept under water for 10 minutes you're a witch and you'll burn at the stake.

But er, excuse me, er most people can only hold their breath for about 3 minutes; 5 minutes tops.

Dont worry okay, if you're not a witch and you drown, we can save your soul and you'll go to heaven, because we can do that for drowned non witches.

Isnt there a better way of doing this.

Nah, we thought about it but really this way is fool proof. Its better to kill you off, thats the only way we can work out if you are not a witch and hey you wont have a problem then.

But Ill be dead.

Yeah thats kind of the tricky bit, but we're working on it.

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
Hey Chicken Little, the sky isn’t falling. Computer climate modeling is wildly inaccurate, the hockey stick theory has been discredited, the timeline for measuring global warming is far too short to reach any conclusions, plus, over the years, the media has been wrong many times on this issue. First they report that a new ice age is upon us, now ...[text shortened]... you tell hypocrite Al Gore to reduce his carbon footprint?

http://algorescarbonfootprint.com/

You have completely misunderstood my point. You can debate the science if you want to, and I have no problem with that.

What I object to are arguments based on the effect on the economy and so forth, as I outlined. The arguments I criticised have nothing to do with scientific questions at all, and everything to do with being economically selfish and self-obsessed. My own Prime Minister uses these kinds of economic arguments while AGREEING with the majority scientific view.

Originally posted by orfeo
You have completely misunderstood my point. You can debate the science if you want to, and I have no problem with that.

What I object to are arguments based on the effect on the economy and so forth, as I outlined. The arguments I criticised have nothing to do with scientific questions at all, and everything to do with being economically selfish and self- ...[text shortened]... inister uses these kinds of economic arguments while AGREEING with the majority scientific view.

Isnt it true though that if the US and little us and all the nay sayers joined up to Kyoto, then the poorest countries of the world would even be further disadvantaged, and from the perspective of this 2/3 majority of the planet global warming and climate change is just another scare mongering ruse to stop poor people from getting ahead?

Originally posted by orfeo
You have completely misunderstood my point. ....

i think this is just typical ... most people completely miss the point.

When things of this magnitude are contemplated most people become distracted by some comparitively trivial issue.

climate change is a big and diverse issue involving everything ...

but

to see the relevant issuefor humanity today is only possible when all the minor points are filtered out.

people are rarely prepared to do this, they become distracted by the things that should be neglected.

Originally posted by kmax87
Isnt it true though that if the US and little us and all the nay sayers joined up to Kyoto, then the poorest countries of the world would even be further disadvantaged, and from the perspective of this 2/3 majority of the planet global warming and climate change is just another scare mongering ruse to stop poor people from getting ahead?

No, it isn't true.

Originally posted by orfeo
You have completely misunderstood my point. You can debate the science if you want to, and I have no problem with that.

What I object to are arguments based on the effect on the economy and so forth, as I outlined. The arguments I criticised have nothing to do with scientific questions at all, and everything to do with being economically selfish and self- ...[text shortened]... inister uses these kinds of economic arguments while AGREEING with the majority scientific view.

You’re completely free to live like Java man if it suits you, however, since you’re so opposed to selfishness, wouldn’t you agree that it is selfish to impose Kyoto on the world with all its myriad costs both direct and indirect, even though the mitigating effects will be negligible just because it makes you feel better that “at least we’re doing something about global warming”?

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
He won't sign the treaty because there's nothing anyone can do to mitigate this naturally occurring cyclical phenomenon. Moreover, it would be stupid to hamstring our economy when the Europeans can't even meet their obligations under the treaty and their participation has caused economic growth to stall. Lastly, why should he sign it when the Chi ...[text shortened]... ne will have forgotten about global warming and instead will be talking about global cooling.

i think you should compare:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_skeptics
to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

i would be embarassed to be in the skeptic group - and i do not embarass easily.

Originally posted by Palynka
No, it isn't true.

Well if its not true who bears the cost. Or do we go down the ridiculous road of carbon trading where what with economic growth booming in countries like India and China, the reality would be a net increase in world carbon emmissions because the first world played clever accounting tricks.

Then you and me wont even know that we are worse off, instead we'll be living in a heightened sense of false security having made so many energy sacrifices doing the right thing. And for what?

Originally posted by kmax87
Well if its not true who bears the cost. Or do we go down the ridiculous road of carbon trading where what with economic growth booming in countries like India and China, the reality would be a net increase in world carbon emmissions because the first world played clever accounting tricks.

Then you and me wont even know that we are worse off, instead we'l ...[text shortened]... se of false security having made so many energy sacrifices doing the right thing. And for what?

this is just like a nuclear cold war : each side has the ability to make a mess of the planet.

the solution in the nuclear cold war was clear: neither side should destroy the world that we all must live in.

surely the solution is also clear here : neither group should pollute OUR atmosphere.

Originally posted by flexmore
i think you should compare:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_skeptics
to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

i would be embarassed to be in the skeptic group - and i do not embarass easily.

Pardon me, but I didn't get your credentials. Are you a climate scientist? Are you involved with a research institute? Do you work with public policy as it pertains to global warming? I would be embarrassed to use Wikipedia as my source.

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
Pardon me, but I didn't get your credentials. Are you a climate scientist? Are you involved with a research institute? Do you work with public policy as it pertains to global warming? I would be embarrassed to use Wikipedia as my source.

sorry to have made you look like an idiot ... but you can take most of the credit.

- i almost forgot to answer your question - yes i am a "qualified" scientist and i have been very interested in atmospheric physics and climatology for more than two decades since i first studied related elements at university. ... however qualifications are just pap.

the relevant point is the truth ... the truth here seems quite clear except to a few blind fools.