More nails to the coffin on Global Warming Alarmists? - General

Screw the environment, what's it ever done for us?

[QUOTE=rilez;18593649]yes a bullshit graph created by a research scientist at the University of Alabama who worked at NASA[/QUOTE] The global warming period was a phenomenon limited to certain parts of Europe, later graphs using global data rather than data from just Europe don't exhibit this "Global Warming Period"

[QUOTE=Pvt. Ryan;18595201]The problem with that view is that it isn't nuanced enough. Regardless as to whether or not humans are responsible for global warming, we still have a responsibility to protect the environment from deforestation and other such disasters. We can't just, for example, conclude that global warming is natural (due to sun spots, volcanoes, or what have you) and then use that to justify building a shitload of new coal power plants. The fact that global warming is even debated in relation to things like cap and trade is a problem, as it's still a Very Bad Thing to pollute the air.[/QUOTE] You need to maintain some sense of skeptisism of all things. I never said that skeptisism justifies building coal plants. What I said was that you can't compare Creationism vs Evolution and the Global Warming debate.

[QUOTE=Carbon Knight;18595257]You need to maintain some sense of skeptisism of all things. I never said that skeptisism justifies building coal plants. What I said was that you can't compare Creationism vs Evolution and the Global Warming debate.[/QUOTE] well I can agree with the last thing you said, just because not as much is at stake other than petty bullshit and first amendment issues my point is that global warming is only a part of the overall big picture on climate change* (see: acidification of the oceans, etc) *even though the root cause of most of this is co2 emissions

[QUOTE=schrollbach;18594603]rofl, maybe you should look up what nickel mining does to the environment[/QUOTE] as opposed to drilling for oil?

Doesn't matter. In 10,000 years we'll go through another Ice Age.

[QUOTE=rilez;18593806]I don't like arguing when I have no chance of getting through to the other side. If you consider that victory then more to you[/QUOTE] perhaps you have no chance of getting through to the other side because you're wrong... [editline]12:10AM[/editline] [QUOTE=admiral_Cola;18595401]Doesn't matter. In 10,000 years we'll go through another Ice Age.[/QUOTE] anthropogenic climate change will have already devastated mankind by then dummy [editline]12:11AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Carbon Knight;18595257]You need to maintain some sense of skeptisism of all things. I never said that skeptisism justifies building coal plants. What I said was that you can't compare Creationism vs Evolution and the Global Warming debate.[/QUOTE] but the scientific evidence for anthropogenic climate change is just as strong as the evidence for evolution skepticism is important, but global warming denying isn't skepticism, it's blatant ignoring of evidence.

Wouldn't it be wise to also invest in ways of ensuring crop production? Even if Global Warming is averted/not a problem the climate won't stay the same forever. [QUOTE=SigmaLambda;18595461] skepticism is important, but global warming denying isn't skepticism, it's blatant ignoring of evidence.[/QUOTE] The argument has to prove itself to the public. Evolution took an incredible amount of time to prove itself to the public. It is suprising the masses have been as receptive to it as they have so quickly.

[QUOTE=Carbon Knight;18595502]Wouldn't it be wise to also invest in ways of ensuring crop production? Even if Global Warming is averted/not a problem the climate won't stay the same forever.[/QUOTE] yes but "we need to change regardless of whether or not there is global warming" isn't the proper way to go about it. The majority of mankind is not going to change it's ways unless it's imperative, and there are people, like the oil lobby, who are going to fight change tooth and nail. [editline]12:17AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Carbon Knight;18595502] The argument has to prove itself to the public.[/QUOTE] It has been proven. The evidence is overwhelming. The public hasn't believed it because corporations and people with financial interests in global warming not being true have overtaken a large portion of the media, making it seem that there's some sort of major scientific dissent. There isn't. [editline]12:18AM[/editline] also, where did you go Wolf Marine? You constantly post threads like this in GD, but you always run away when people with actual arguments show up.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;18595526]yes but "we need to change regardless of whether or not there is global warming" isn't the proper way to go about it. The majority of mankind is not going to change it's ways unless it's imperative, and there are people, like the oil lobby, who are going to fight change tooth and nail.[/QUOTE] It is inevitable that the climate will change, global warming or not. Why is it perposterous to invest into more durrable crop techniques?

[QUOTE=Carbon Knight;18595571]It is inevitable that the climate will change, global warming or not.[/QUOTE] That's a dumb argument. So, since the climate changes anyway, we should never worry about what effect we're having on it? The problem with what's going on now is that the climate is changing very, very rapidly. Far more rapidly than it happens in nature. [QUOTE=Carbon Knight;18595571]Why is it perposterous to invest into more durrable crop techniques?[/QUOTE] I didn't say that. I said that people aren't going to bother changing their ways unless they need to. And we need to.

[QUOTE=Pvt. Ryan;18594983]see here: [url]http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=rising-acidity-in-the-ocean[/url] anyone that denies man-made climate change is pretty much an imbecile at this point; climate change does not just revolve around temperature[/QUOTE] Fuck the atmosphere we gotta save the fish!

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;18595526] It has been proven. The evidence is overwhelming. The public hasn't believed it because corporations and people with financial interests in global warming not being true have overtaken a large portion of the media, making it seem that there's some sort of major scientific dissent. There isn't. [/QUOTE] You don't understand. It must prove itself to the public. Do you think evolution changed the minds of every creationist on day 1? [QUOTE=SigmaLambda;18595526] corporations and people with financial interests in global warming not being true have overtaken a large portion of the media, making it seem that there's some sort of major scientific dissent. There isn't. [/QUOTE] To be honest, I have seen jack shit in terms of corporate propoganda in favor of skeptisism. What I have seen however is a large amount of corporate made "green" products which are not green in any way other than paint. [QUOTE=SigmaLambda;18595607] I didn't say that. I said that people aren't going to bother changing their ways unless they need to. And we need to.[/QUOTE] If Gwynne Dyer is to be believed it is quite imperitive to change crop techniques if this is all that is required to destabilize the current system. However, Gwynne Dyer is a [B]war historian[/B] who feasts on fear fantasies fueled by global warming, while discrediting scientists that speak against global warming because their academic field is not climatology.

[QUOTE=Carbon Knight;18595611]To be honest, I have seen jack shit in terms of corporate propoganda in favor of skeptisism. [/QUOTE] ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahaAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHASDFDASFSGDFDwdafsasdfsdafsdafgwearwaefsdaefwfsdfdsaf [QUOTE=Carbon Knight;18595611]What I have seen however is a large amount of corporate made "green" products which are not green in any way other than paint.[/QUOTE] ahahahahahahahahahahaha yeah, all of the scientists are being paid off by the people who make coily lightbulbs and pencil erasers shaped like panda bears. ahahahahahahahaha [editline]12:26AM[/editline] jesus christ man do you live in candyland?

[QUOTE=rilez;18593649]yes a bullshit graph created by a research scientist at the University of Alabama who worked at NASA[/QUOTE] Do you mean this guy? [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_%28scientist%29[/url] Because I wouldn't respect the scientific ideas of a creationist.

"oh yes, I haven't seen any corporate funded global warming skepticism. What's that? What news service do I watch? Why, Global Gumdrop News of course! Their team of gingerbread news anchors are really the best around."

there's all sorts of fucked up environmental problems that it's best not to think about things just look at big agro for example and the threat of disease to homogeneous crop types; of course the companies do their best to keep the crops up-to-snuff genetically but then look at how they push their products on developing markets as a way of wiping out old farming practices in favor of the new hybrid crops

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;18595640] jesus christ man do you live in candyland?[/QUOTE] What ratio of Global warming commericals to Corporate Global warming skeptisism commercials do you see on TV? Unless you are watching FOX 24/7.

[QUOTE=Carbon Knight;18595684]What ratio of Global warming commericals to Corporate Global warming skeptisism commercials do you see on TV? Unless you are watching FOX 24/7.[/QUOTE] the fact of the matter is: the majority of Americans who watch cable news, watch Fox news. and who do you think funds all of these studies that you deniers keep citing?

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;18595664]"oh yes, I haven't seen any corporate funded global warming skepticism. What's that? What news service do I watch? Why, Global Gumdrop News of course! Their team of gingerbread news anchors are really the best around."[/QUOTE] This kind of shows that you are lacking an argument. [QUOTE=SigmaLambda;18595716]the fact of the matter is: the majority of Americans who watch cable news, watch Fox news. and who do you think funds all of these studies that you deniers keep citing?[/QUOTE] So one channel? It's fox, what do you expect, fair and balanced news? Your corporate conspiracy is one channel. I haven't cited any study. It's called skeptisism.

[QUOTE=Carbon Knight;18595717] It's called skeptisism.[/QUOTE] it's unreasonable skepticism skepticism is important yeah, but not when all of the evidence in the world is slapping you in the face with it's dick [editline]12:35AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Carbon Knight;18595717]This kind of shows that you are lacking an argument.[/QUOTE] "I don't see any corporate sponsored global warming skepticism" is too stupid an statement to be argued with. "What, you're laughing at me because I said that the illuminati actually controls us through microchips planted in banana peels? Obviously you're laughing because you don't have a good argument :smug: :smug: :mugs:"

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;18595746]it's unreasonable skepticism skepticism is important yeah, but not when all of the evidence in the world is slapping you in the face with it's dick[/QUOTE] And you have arguments from Advocates against global warming who would say the exact same thing.

[QUOTE=Carbon Knight;18595717]This kind of shows that you are lacking an argument.[/QUOTE] it doesn't matter what the public sees w.r.t. "propaganda", the heart of the matter is what sorts of sources said propaganda cites. I know it's huffpo but it's the quickest thing I could find with a cursory google search: [url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kert-davies/revealed-exxon-secret-fun_b_208269.html[/url] stuff like this has been well documented

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;18595746] "I don't see any corporate sponsored global warming skepticism" is too stupid an statement to be argued with.[/QUOTE] Your only response was fox news. How stupid is it to base a corporate conspiracy theory on only ONE channel.

[QUOTE=Carbon Knight;18595766]Your only response was fox news. How stupid is it to base a corporate conspiracy theory on only ONE channel.[/QUOTE] that one channel is responsible for the majority of Americans who watch cable news. They have the largest market share. just look at pvt ryan's post I know your WELL HONED POSTING LASERS have set their sights on me and me alone, but he's doing a better job than me. Maybe I'm capitalizing too many sentences...

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;18595777]that one channel is responsible for the majority of Americans who watch cable news. They have the largest market share.[/QUOTE] Perhaps there are bigger things to worry about if that is what the majority of Americans watch.

[QUOTE=Carbon Knight;18595785]Perhaps there are bigger things to worry about if that is what the majority of Americans watch.[/QUOTE] it's not good for the public's general welfare if most people frame their political viewpoints around what is said on fox news, but a lot of that sort of stuff is hyperbole; I don't think fox is going to spark the second civil war or anything you're right that there are bigger things to worry about than fox news though

[QUOTE=Carbon Knight;18595785]Perhaps there are bigger things to worry about if that is what the majority of Americans watch.[/QUOTE] it's true though: [url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/30/fox-news-dominates-3q-200_n_304260.html[/url] and guess what? one of those "bigger things to worry about" is that so many americans believe that global warming isn't true when all of the evidence points to the contrary, simply because fox news over represents one side of the argument.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;18595803]it's true though: [url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/30/fox-news-dominates-3q-200_n_304260.html[/url][/QUOTE] who cares, there's always been a father coughlin and johnny reb

As a New Zealander I am very dissapointed by this. Even our esteemed leader, John Key isn't going to the summit.