PDA

View Full Version : Global Warming Is A Hoax.*



Rogers
08-15-2007, 06:48 PM
Global Warming Is A Hoax*
* Or so claim well-funded naysayers who still reject the overwhelming evidence of climate change.

The Truth About Denial
From the Newsweek article's last page...
To some extent, greenhouse denial is now running on automatic pilot. "Some members of Congress have completely internalized this," says Pew's Roy, and therefore need no coaching from the think tanks and contrarian scientists who for 20 years kept them stoked with arguments. At a hearing last month on the Kyoto treaty, GOP Congressman Dana Rohrabacher asked whether "changes in the Earth's temperature in the past—all of these glaciers moving back and forth—and the changes that we see now" might be "a natural occurrence." (Hundreds of studies have ruled that out.) "I think it's a bit grandiose for us to believe ... that [human activities are] going to change some major climate cycle that's going on." Inhofe has told allies he will filibuster any climate bill that mandates greenhouse cuts.

Still, like a great beast that has been wounded, the denial machine is not what it once was. In the NEWSWEEK Poll, 38 percent of those surveyed identified climate change as the nation's gravest environmental threat, three times the number in 2000. After ExxonMobil was chastised by senators for giving $19 million over the years to the Competitive Enterprise Institute and others who are "producing very questionable data" on climate change, as Sen. Jay Rockefeller said, the company has cut back its support for such groups. In June, a spokesman said ExxonMobil did not doubt the risks posed by climate change, telling reporters, "We're very much not a denier." In yet another shock, Bush announced at the weekend that he would convene a global-warming summit next month, with a 2008 goal of cutting greenhouse emissions. That astonished the remaining naysayers. "I just can't imagine the administration would look to mandatory [emissions caps] after what we had with Kyoto," said a GOP Senate staffer, who did not want to be named criticizing the president. "I mean, what a disaster!"

With its change of heart, ExxonMobil is more likely to win a place at the negotiating table as Congress debates climate legislation. That will be crucially important to industry especially in 2009, when naysayers may no longer be able to count on a friend in the White House nixing man-datory greenhouse curbs. All the Democratic presidential contenders have called global warming a real threat, and promise to push for cuts similar to those being passed by California and other states. In the GOP field, only McCain—long a leader on the issue—supports that policy. Fred Thompson belittles findings that human activities are changing the climate, and Rudy Giuliani backs the all-volunteer greenhouse curbs of (both) Presidents Bush.

Look for the next round of debate to center on what Americans are willing to pay and do to stave off the worst of global warming. So far the answer seems to be, not much. The NEWSWEEK Poll finds less than half in favor of requiring high-mileage cars or energy-efficient appliances and buildings. No amount of white papers, reports and studies is likely to change that. If anything can, it will be the climate itself. This summer, Texas was hit by exactly the kind of downpours and flooding expected in a greenhouse world, and Las Vegas and other cities broiled in record triple-digit temperatures. Just last week the most accurate study to date concluded that the length of heat waves in Europe has doubled, and their frequency nearly tripled, in the past century. The frequency of Atlantic hurricanes has already doubled in the last century. Snowpack whose water is crucial to both cities and farms is diminishing. It's enough to make you wish that climate change were a hoax, rather than the reality it is.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek/

manbearpig
09-05-2007, 04:05 AM
Can't really trust any publication these days it seems. So who knows either way. Though I'm sure with close to 7 billion of us we're having some kinda impact. Is it as serious as they say? Only time will tell. It'll take something drastic to prove or disprove it.

Rogers
09-05-2007, 05:52 AM
Can't really trust any publication these days it seems. So who knows either way. Though I'm sure with close to 7 billion of us we're having some kinda impact. Is it as serious as they say? Only time will tell. It'll take something drastic to prove or disprove it.
Wasn't "manbearpig" the sworn enemy of Al Gore, just like a certain Canadian seemed to be? :wink: :lol: 8)

The Newsweek article, MBP, was about the denial machine surrounding global warming, not the science. So what exactly is wrong with Newsweek? You've taken an illogical step and tried to cast doubt on all the science that backs AGW. 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)

trish
09-05-2007, 06:03 AM
If you take the time to reason through the science you don't have to trust published conclusions. You can draw the conclusions yourself. The only "drastic" measure required is self application.

Rogers
09-05-2007, 06:10 AM
manbearpig's sig.: "It's not denial. I'm just very selective about the reality I accept."
You're talking about perception, MBP, not science. Science tries to eliminate the bias caused by perception. LMFAO.

qeuqheeg222
09-05-2007, 09:41 AM
nothing like standing in a big lots parking lot in august,the lot filled with hundreds of cars,feeling the heat radiating of the pavement in the hot miami sun.....next me an that hillbilly imhofe (oklahoma's oil industry finest) will take to huffing gas .....

NewYorker
09-05-2007, 07:07 PM
Can't really trust any publication these days it seems. So who knows either way. Though I'm sure with close to 7 billion of us we're having some kinda impact. Is it as serious as they say? Only time will tell. It'll take something drastic to prove or disprove it.

Here's the thing, wouldn't you rather take the steps necessary to prevent something drastic from happening rather than take the risk to wait and see if it won't? You know, hope for the best but prepare for the worst.

ezed
09-06-2007, 06:16 AM
Can't really trust any publication these days it seems. So who knows either way. Though I'm sure with close to 7 billion of us we're having some kinda impact. Is it as serious as they say? Only time will tell. It'll take something drastic to prove or disprove it.

Here's the thing, wouldn't you rather take the steps necessary to prevent something drastic from happening rather than take the risk to wait and see if it won't? You know, hope for the best but prepare for the worst.

Unfortunately, all of us who read this thread, are searching for large cock picks and taking delight and seeing our typed messages and not really doing anything productive. But on the plus side....maybe we won't end up in a nursing home, shitting our pants and saying see, I told you!

And an innocent CNA will seriously ask us, "But don't you want your clinged peaches?"

manbearpig
09-06-2007, 06:57 AM
Even science starts with someone else's perception. One has to perceive a problem before they think to use science to fix it. And so on and so forth. We should all be responsible for what we do with our environment. The earth will be just fine. Will we? Probably not. The planet has taken alot of hits over the 4.6 billion years its been around and has come out virtually unscathed. It's just a matter of how much longer it'll be a suitable place for us. Worst case scenario, the human race is diminished to the thousands and the plant and animal life come in to reclaim everything.

trish
09-06-2007, 07:04 AM
Worst case scenario...the human race is diminished to zero. Total extinctiontion has happened many times before.
:cry:


But hey...at least the Earth will be okay. :roll:

manbearpig
09-06-2007, 07:20 AM
lol the campaign shouldn't be "fight global warming" it should be "let's save our asses"

Rogers
09-07-2007, 02:35 AM
Even science starts with someone else's perception. One has to perceive a problem before they think to use science to fix it. And so on and so forth. We should all be responsible for what we do with our environment. The earth will be just fine. Will we? Probably not. The planet has taken alot of hits over the 4.6 billion years its been around and has come out virtually unscathed. It's just a matter of how much longer it'll be a suitable place for us. Worst case scenario, the human race is diminished to the thousands and the plant and animal life come in to reclaim everything.
The essence of science is the repeated tested of hypotheses, nothing more, nothing less. All scientific hypotheses are biased by human perception, but it is through their repeated testing that its influence is negated.

As far as global warming is concerned, I'm pretty sure a significant proportion of mankind will survive (i.e. the richest) no matter how bad it may become because mankind is able to alter its environment to enhance its chances of survival. The kicker is that it is the poorest who'll be most affected, and they're the least able to defend themselves. Man's continued perturbation of the Earth's environment will also result in further habitat and ecosystem degradation meaning that a barrel load of other species WILL go extinct. The less complex an ecosystem becomes, e.g. through a reduction of species, the more unstable it becomes. Net result is an altered and poorer planet, but hey MBP, at least the empty mountains and oceans will still be there for the rich to enjoy free of all the poor folk.

Soon, if we are not prudent, millions of people will be watching each other starve to death through expensive television sets.
"In Place of Fear", p. 192, 1952 - Aneurin Bevan.

Humans 'affect global rainfall'
Nature, ?, 2007.
The team estimated that human activity, such as burning fossil fuels, was likely to have led to a 62mm increase in the annual precipitation trend over the past century over land areas located 40-70 degrees North, which includes Canada, northern Europe and Russia.

They also suggested the increase of greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols in the atmosphere had contributed a 82mm increase in the southern tropics and subtropics (0-30 degrees South), and a 98mm decrease in precipitation in the northern tropics (0-30 degrees North).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6912527.stm

The Great Tigray Ethiopian FAMINE in Ethiopia
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxGddIDHbCQ

Sudan Niger Famine
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qyMqt6jSA8

And while the niggers of this world are starving
with their mouths wide open
What is it that turns the coins we throw at them
into worthless little tokens?
The The, "The Violence of Truth" (Mind Bomb) 198?