Global Warming?

Status
Not open for further replies.
   / Global Warming? #1,691  
Distinguishing Climate "Deniers" From "Skeptics"

A FINAL MILESTONE

Ah, but there is one more thing our poor Skeptic has to admit, if she truly is honest and ready to start peppering the experts. She needs to acknowledge that atmospheric scientists are human.

Furthermore, having tried for twenty years to use logic, reason and data to deal with a screeching, offensive and nasty Denial Movement, these human beings are exhausted people. Their hackles are up. They have very, very important work on their plates. Their time is valuable and, frankly, they see little point in wasting any more of it trying to reason with folks who:

-- deny that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas
-- then deny human-generated burning of carbon fuels has increased greenhouse gas content in the atmosphere
-- then claim the increase won't affect temperatures
-- then claim there is no warming
-- while the US Navy is furiously making plans to traverse an "ice-free" arctic
-- then claim humans have no role in the warming
-- then admit we're causing it
-- but claim it's already too late
-- and anyway they'll have a longer growing season in Alberta
-- then shout that we can't afford efforts to wean ourselves of greenhouse emissions
-- even though the things that would address AGW happen to be stuff we should be doing anyway, to gain energy independence, increase productivity, reduce the leverage of hostile petro powers, and a dozen other important things.

Mr. or Ms. Skeptic, can you see how wearing it has been, dealing with a storm of such BS? Can you admit that the professionals and experts may not, at first, be able to distinguish sincere skeptics, like you, from the maniacs who have been chivvying and screaming at them (on puppet-orders from Fox and Riyadh and Moscow) for years?

AGW "Skeptics" like you are saddened to see that many of the scientists are prickly, irritable and sullen about answering an endless stream of rehashed questions, only a few of which aren't blatant nonsense. (Some have even resorted to less-than-professional tactics.) But you Skeptics the smart and honest ones understand what's happened. And so, you'll cooperate about helping the experts feel safe to come out and share what they know. And maybe then they will answer some of the Skeptics' inconvenient questions.


SO WHAT'S A SINCERE AND ENLIGHTENED SKEPTIC TO DO?

This is when the honest Climate Skeptic recites what I suggested earlier.


"Okay, I'll admit we need more efficiency and sustainability, desperately, in order to regain energy independence, improve productivity, erase the huge leverage of hostile foreign petro-powers, reduce pollution, secure our defense, prevent ocean acidification, and ease a vampiric drain on our economy. If I don't like one proposed way to achieve this, then I will negotiate in good faith other methods that can help us to achieve all these things, decisively, without further delay and with urgent speed.

"Further, I accept that 'waste-not, want not' and 'a-penny-saved, a-penny-earned' and 'cleanliness-is-next-to-godliness' and 'genuine market competition' used to be good conservative attitudes. But the "side" that has been pushing the Denial Movement propelled by petro-princes, Russsian oligarchs and Exxon hasn't any credibility on the issue of weaning America off wasteful habits. In fact, it's not conservatism at all!

"And so, for those reasons alone, let's join together to make a big and genuine push for efficiency.

"Oh, and by the way, I don't believe in Human-caused Global Climate Change! But if I am wrong, these measures would help deal with that too.

"So there, are you happy, you blue-smartypants-eco-science types? Are you satisfied that I am a sincere Climate Skeptic and not one of the drivel-parroting Deniers? Now can some of your atmospheric scientists put on an extended teach-in and answer some inconvenient questions? (Oh, and thanks for the vastly improved weather reports; they show you're smart enough to be able to explain these things to a humble-but-curious fellow citizen like me.)"

--------------------------------------------------------

Loren
 
   / Global Warming? #1,692  
Distinguishing Climate "Deniers" From "Skeptics"

A FINAL MILESTONE

Ah, but there is one more thing our poor Skeptic has to admit, if she truly is honest and ready to start peppering the experts. She needs to acknowledge that atmospheric scientists are human.

Furthermore, having tried for twenty years to use logic, reason and data to deal with a screeching, offensive and nasty Denial Movement, these human beings are exhausted people. Their hackles are up. They have very, very important work on their plates. Their time is valuable and, frankly, they see little point in wasting any more of it trying to reason with folks who:

-- deny that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas
-- then deny human-generated burning of carbon fuels has increased greenhouse gas content in the atmosphere
-- then claim the increase won't affect temperatures
-- then claim there is no warming
-- while the US Navy is furiously making plans to traverse an "ice-free" arctic
-- then claim humans have no role in the warming
-- then admit we're causing it
-- but claim it's already too late
-- and anyway they'll have a longer growing season in Alberta
-- then shout that we can't afford efforts to wean ourselves of greenhouse emissions
-- even though the things that would address AGW happen to be stuff we should be doing anyway, to gain energy independence, increase productivity, reduce the leverage of hostile petro powers, and a dozen other important things.

Mr. or Ms. Skeptic, can you see how wearing it has been, dealing with a storm of such BS? Can you admit that the professionals and experts may not, at first, be able to distinguish sincere skeptics, like you, from the maniacs who have been chivvying and screaming at them (on puppet-orders from Fox and Riyadh and Moscow) for years?

AGW "Skeptics" like you are saddened to see that many of the scientists are prickly, irritable and sullen about answering an endless stream of rehashed questions, only a few of which aren't blatant nonsense. (Some have even resorted to less-than-professional tactics.) But you Skeptics — the smart and honest ones — understand what's happened. And so, you'll cooperate about helping the experts feel safe to come out and share what they know. And maybe then they will answer some of the Skeptics' inconvenient questions.


SO WHAT'S A SINCERE AND ENLIGHTENED SKEPTIC TO DO?

This is when the honest Climate Skeptic recites what I suggested earlier.


"Okay, I'll admit we need more efficiency and sustainability, desperately, in order to regain energy independence, improve productivity, erase the huge leverage of hostile foreign petro-powers, reduce pollution, secure our defense, prevent ocean acidification, and ease a vampiric drain on our economy. If I don't like one proposed way to achieve this, then I will negotiate in good faith other methods that can help us to achieve all these things, decisively, without further delay and with urgent speed.

"Further, I accept that 'waste-not, want not' and 'a-penny-saved, a-penny-earned' and 'cleanliness-is-next-to-godliness' and 'genuine market competition' used to be good conservative attitudes. But the "side" that has been pushing the Denial Movement — propelled by petro-princes, Russsian oligarchs and Exxon — hasn't any credibility on the issue of weaning America off wasteful habits. In fact, it's not conservatism at all!

"And so, for those reasons alone, let's join together to make a big and genuine push for efficiency.

"Oh, and by the way, I don't believe in Human-caused Global Climate Change! But if I am wrong, these measures would help deal with that too.

"So there, are you happy, you blue-smartypants-eco-science types? Are you satisfied that I am a sincere Climate Skeptic and not one of the drivel-parroting Deniers? Now can some of your atmospheric scientists put on an extended teach-in and answer some inconvenient questions? (Oh, and thanks for the vastly improved weather reports; they show you're smart enough to be able to explain these things to a humble-but-curious fellow citizen like me.)"

--------------------------------------------------------

Loren
 
   / Global Warming? #1,693  
IS IT REALLY CLOSE TO 100%?

At the 2008 Future in Review Conference, Harvard professor James McCarthy, former co-chair of the IPCC, was asked how many of the world's top 1000 climate experts would disagree with the basic scientific consensus that the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations over the last 50 years to levels not seen in 650,000 years is primarily anthropogenic and is the cause of an increase in global temperatures. He replied, "Five."

This fits with my own anecedotal experience, asking the same question of about a dozen top atmospheres people, over the years. But the smoking gun, again, is the "dog that hasn't barked in the night." Despite publicly bruited offers of jobs, publicity and lavish rewards from fossil fuel companies and neoconservative media, very few qualified experts in climate have stepped forward to object to the overall consensus on AGW, and those have couched their doubts very specifically, so as to be almost useless to the Denial Community.

WHO ARE THE MORE LIKELY CONSPIRATORS?

Alas, still fizzing with questions, the Skeptic hasn't finished "admitting things" yet, in order to have her curiosity taken seriously. For example, she openly admits who the chief beneficiaries of the current status quo are: those who spent two decades delaying energy efficiency research and urging us to guzzle carbon fuels like mad. But let's have it out, in the open.

The guys who benefit from keeping us on the oil-teat are... foreign petro-princes, Russian oil oligarchs, and Exxon. That is where the money flows.

Our Skeptic admits that these fellows have Trillions (with a T) staked on preserving things as they are — on preventing America from moving toward energy efficiency and independence. He admits that a conspiracy among fifty petro oligarchs seems more plausible than some convoluted cabal to "push green technologies" — a supposed conspiracy involving tens of thousands of diverse people, most of them nerdy blabbermouths, squabbling over far smaller sums of money.

Though a comparison of relative plausibility doesn't prove anything, it does illuminate the starkly uneven way that paranoia is allocated in the Denier Movement.

Distinguishing Climate "Deniers" From "Skeptics"

Loren
 
   / Global Warming? #1,694  
No disagreement that conditons have cycled. The rate of the cycle is the issue...the scientific community concludes that it is likely that man's activity is contributing to the acceleration of the cycle.

As you must know, nothing in science is proven beyond a doubt. Its the nature of science. Climate scientists' professional opinions is the best we have. Of course the deniers use this to discount anyhting they don't agree with.

Deny, deny, deny...reaccuse.

The best predictor of future events is past events......really. Proof or support of that statement. Example....the Hudson River was not polluted by PCBs for 10,000 years therefore it will never happen:thumbsup:

Loren
Loren

Loren


It's likely that man's activity is contibuting, and not proven beyond a doubt? Sounds like plenty of room for doubt to me. Maybe some people need more proof and what's wrong with that?
 
   / Global Warming? #1,695  
Loren49, a Harvard scientist believes it's nearly 100%. Really what a shock that is!:D
You guys spend pages of cut and paste, but you can't answer the simple questions that have been asked so you pile on more opinions from liberal believers. Wow, that is convincing! ;)
 
   / Global Warming? #1,696  
Loren49, a Harvard scientist believes it's nearly 100%. Really what a shock that is!:D
You guys spend pages of cut and paste, but you can't answer the simple questions that have been asked so you pile on more opinions from liberal believers. Wow, that is convincing! ;)

If you took the time to read the article you may find that the shoe fits. As stated, nothing in science is proved beyond doubt. Their is a cartoon in the article that shows the folly in waiting for 100% proof as it never comes until its too late. You should try reading the article and thinking about it. You may be a pawn in their game.:thumbsup:

Loren
 
   / Global Warming? #1,697  
Really? On what basis do you conclude that? There was quite a bit of effort expended to figure out how to prove Einstein's theory of Relativity. If scientists can establish whether or not a gas contributes to the greenhouse effect, what can they not put a number to the amount of heat retained by the additional CO2?

The data is their if you care to look. The burning of fossil fuels by the 7 billion people is contributing to the acceleration of global warming according to the experts and scientific community.

Deny, deny,deny...reaccuse

Loren
 
   / Global Warming? #1,698  
There are deniers & warmies -, no matter which camp you are on, nothing is going to change your mind.
Experts in the scientific community are also on both sides of the issue. So pick your web site and you can prove most anything you want to.

Some simple facts.
Valcanic action & forrest fires Contribute far more CO2, sulfur dixoide and other harmfull gasses than Man. Mans contribution is very small in relation to valconos and fires.

Sorry about any misspelled words - spell check not working.

Termites are 1 of the largest contibuters to green house gas and its Methane, far worse than CO2.

Excess regulation moves jobs out of the US and usually to contries that are far worse polluters than the US before the 1,300 new rules added by *****

In the last 3.5 years the Gov. has spent 350,000 billion $$$$. Most of it went to Failed Solar companys.

7 Billion people contributing to Acceleration. -A figure grabbed out of the Air??? 7 Billion people on the planet, are they all burning fossil fuel???
 
   / Global Warming? #1,699  
There are deniers & warmies -, no matter which camp you are on, nothing is going to change your mind.
Experts in the scientific community are also on both sides of the issue. So pick your web site and you can prove most anything you want to.

Some simple facts.
Valcanic action & forrest fires Contribute far more CO2, sulfur dixoide and other harmfull gasses than Man. Mans contribution is very small in relation to valconos and fires.

Sorry about any misspelled words - spell check not working.
And you couldn't correct it?
Seems if a scientist made an error they would correct it.

Termites are 1 of the largest contibuters to green house gas and its Methane, far worse than CO2.
Where's your proof? Have you measured every termite? Or are you relying on scientists to tell you? Are they in 100% agreement?

Excess regulation moves jobs out of the US and usually to contries that are far worse polluters than the US before the 1,300 new rules added by *****
Ah, got to add in *****, despite that most of the rules were started administrations ago.
In the last 3.5 years the Gov. has spent 350,000 billion $$$$. Most of it went to Failed Solar companys.
The Gov. spent $350 TRILLION? And MOST went to "Failed Solar companys"? Over 175 TRILLION?
Whoops?
7 Billion people contributing to Acceleration. -A figure grabbed out of the Air??? 7 Billion people on the planet, are they all burning fossil fuel???
No, but I'm sure you'll make up for it.
 
   / Global Warming? #1,700  
And you couldn't correct it?
Seems if a scientist made an error they would correct it.


Where's your proof? Have you measured every termite? Or are you relying on scientists to tell you? Are they in 100% agreement?


Ah, got to add in *****, despite that most of the rules were started administrations ago.

The Gov. spent $350 TRILLION? And MOST went to "Failed Solar companys"? Over 175 TRILLION?
Whoops?

No, but I'm sure you'll make up for it.

Nice to see all your Clear Thinking.
Regulations yes there were lots of them before ***** and they were doing a pretty good job. ***** added 1,300 more that were not needed. Roughly 50% more than already in place.

Sure I can pollute enough to make up for all the people not using fossile fuel.

the termite thing was a documentary several years ago. Now the warmies are picking on Cattle & Dairy's.


Yes I goofed on the Trillion, meant Billion.

Brand new computer will not spell check and has a lot of serious problems , its going back in a couple of days. Dell Hunk of Junk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
 
Top