Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Anyone else believe Suzuki and ilk would still try to find a way to blame the cooling on GHG's?

I'm sorry, but Global Warming is a religion to some of these freaks and regardless of the empirical evidence available, they will find a way to deny, deny, deny in order to hold onto their "faith".


Matthew.  :threat:

 

[Kirkhill]

What do Augustine of Hippo, Martin Luther, the Ayatollah Khomeni, Osama bin Laden, Jerry Falwell and David Suzuki have in common? 

All believe that man is corrupt and needs to be saved from himself.

 

[Flip]

Kirkhill - How dare you lump Martin Luther in with Osama and Suzuki! ;D

"All believe that man is corrupt and needs to be saved from himself."
So, what's wrong with that? :

I feel the need to get a little technical here. Let's see if I can remember what I learned in Sunday School.

A "religion" is a movement based on common system of belief(s) uniting it's members in common cause.
These beliefs are held as sacred and are not subject to outside influences.  Also these beliefs are the foundation for a set of values and traditions practised by a religious community.

A "faith" is the keeping of a spiritual relationship on which we might build a religion.

We practice a religion and we keep faith. They are not the same thing.

If we call Suzuki and Gore adherants to a religion, we are saying that their beliefs are not informed by anything outside their cause.  We can also say they are developing a set of values which they wish to share, if not inflict on others. 
No need for faith or a Deity in this picture.

Where religion comes off the rails in history, we have a religion departing from it's faith.
Osama BinLadens' "religion" has little to do with the Muslim faith.
( IN MY OPINION )
Where Martin Luther got it right, was in that he perceived a disconnect from the Christian faith in the Catholic religion. The phrase "Catholic Faith" implies a reconnection.

This is why I've called this global warming movement a religion
- and why I consider that to be a problem.

I hope this post serves to keep the piece, and I hope my meaning at least, is clear.
If anyone wants to freak out on me or wants to persue this religion angle further
Let's do it by PM

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

If we call Suzuki and Gore adherants to a religion, we are saying that their beliefs are not informed by anything outside their cause.  We can also say they are developing a set of values which they wish to share, if not inflict on others. 

No need for faith or a Deity in this picture.

I would argue there is.  For anyone to believe anything strongly there must be an overriding purpose.  For Christians, the faith is that if you take Jesus Christ into your heart and pray for forgiveness for your sins, he will forgive you and you will go to heaven. 

You have faith that an act on your part will provide you with a result that you cannot guarantee.

In this case, the faith of those who are part of the Global Warming Religion is that: "Corporations and Industry are inherently evil and only by returning to a non-industrialized cooperative-based system (which they will gladly administer) can mankind be saved."

They have a faith that an act on mankind's part will provide them with a result they cannot guarantee.

Each takes specific action with the hope that act is rewarded by something they individually have no control over.


Matthew. 

 

[Flip]

Matthew,

I think you are confusing faith and belief. 
Faith has a colloquial meaning,  as in having "faith" the oilers will win.
This is belief.

In strictly spiritual terms, faith is a gift from God.
You accept it or you don't.
Faith can be misconstrued as hoping you get what you want.
It's not.
An act of faith is to do as the spirit moves you.
A very different thing.
This kind of faith does not really depend on a reward.

If you substitute "belief" in your post - I agree with you!

In this case, the "belief" of those who are part of the Global Warming Religion is that: "Corporations and Industry are inherently evil and only by returning to a non-industrialized cooperative-based system (which they will gladly administer) can mankind be saved."

The part I would emphasize is that faith absent religions can be very
dangerous, as they really are something somebody made up.  A such they are
subject to manipulation and ulterior motive.

I think we can imagine why Gore would preach what he does - whether
he believes it or not.  Suzuki is a de-industrialist as described in your paragraph.
The Global Warming religion is the perfect device.

See the difference?

 

[canadianblue]

Since this is really just a thread dedicated to bashing Al Gore, I might as well add my 0.02 cents in here.

I don't really see how global warming is a "religion", unless the majority of the scientific community are off their nut. Second, a large proportion of scientists have supported Gore's claims as facts[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/27/AR2006062700780.html].

In this case, the faith of those who are part of the Global Warming Religion is that: "Corporations and Industry are inherently evil and only by returning to a non-industrialized cooperative-based system (which they will gladly administer) can mankind be saved."

Not really, a well regulated economy works best in my own opinion. The primary motive of business is to make profit, that's it. Adopting radical individualism will not create a better society, and it will not create a better democracy. Support a free market, of course, but in doing so don't put the rest of society at risk because you can save money by not ensuring heath and environmental standards are up to par.

I'm sorry, but Global Warming is a religion to some of these freaks and regardless of the empirical evidence available

Freaks being a large majority of the scientific community. I'm just wondering what "empirical evidence" you are refering to, as their have been plenty of peer reviewed articles showing climate change to be a real phenomenon.

In the end I usually put the global warming skeptics in the same league as those who believe the earth is only 6,000 years old, or that the WTC towers were brought down by demolition, Bigfoot, etc. Usually they only consist of a small but vocal minority.

 

[Flip]

Sigs Guy,

The term "religion" in this thread is reference to how a perfectly reasonable theory
has taken on a life of it's own and exists for it's own sake.

As for empirical evidence - check back on this thread, there's tons.
There are also many in the scientific community that dispute that
man made green house gasses drive our climate - they don't

What I have ALWAYS disagreed with is that environmental movements
always act for their own benefit.  The environment is second or third.
The drive for influence and power is the real motivation.

In very many cases the rush to do the "green" thing has unintended
consequences far worse than any perceived original problem.

The movement leads the science, or ignores the science, and damage is done
for the sake of the movement. There is spin. The public are deceived.
The movement gains popularity.

This thread contains examples - just read it.
You are free to disagree, but let's not lump anyone in with other sceptics.
or cast aspersions when you clearly have not read what's in the thread.

 

[Kirkhill]

My list's bigger than your list. My list's bigger than yours.....

Global Warming Petition 

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

Listed below are 17,200 of the initial signers

During the past several years, more than 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed the Global Warming Petition.
Signers of this petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists (select this link for a listing of these individuals) who are especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth's atmosphere and climate.

Signers of this petition also include 5,017 scientists whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences (select this link for a listing of these individuals) make them especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide upon the Earth's plant and animal life.

Nearly all of the initial 17,100 scientist signers have technical training suitable for the evaluation of the relevant research data, and many are trained in related fields. In addition to these 17,100, approximately 2,400 individuals have signed the petition who are trained in fields other than science or whose field of specialization was not specified on their returned petition.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

And another reason for construing Global Warming as "religion" is because of the number of proselytizers predicting "the end is nigh". 

If there is a case to be made for "green technologies" (and I believe they have their place when cost effective) then Governor Arnold is closer to the track than Al Gore.

 

[canadianblue]

I've read whats in the Scientific American, Washington Post, Globe and Mail, and PBS, with regards to climate change. I've posted a link which shows a large portion of scientists agree with climate change. In all honesty it is a small but vocal minority who disagree with climate change and isn't representative of the scientific community. As well it's odd that so many industrialized nations and most major cities in the United States would buy into this "religion" if their was no basis behind it. If you want to provide the links then by all means go ahead. However if its nothing more than the usual junk science brought forward by Exxon Mobil and the oil lobby I doubt I'll pay much attention.

I still find it hard to believe that people are so petrified of renewable energy, recycling, hybrid cars, and living a more sustainable lifestyle. I don't think we'll become a third world nation on par with Kenya if we lower our greenhouse gas emissions, even if climate change is a "hoax" which I highly doubt what's gonna be the problem, we'll have less pollution, will become less reliant on natural gas, and have a more sustainable society.

Here are more than enough links to show where the Scientific consensus lies with regards to climate change.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/document.asp?latest=1&id=3222
http://books.nap.edu/html/climatechange/summary.html
http://www.geosociety.org/aboutus/position10.htm
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html
http://www.stateclimate.org/publications/files/aascclimatepolicy.pdf
http://www.ama.com.au/web.nsf/doc/WOOD-5ZD6BT
http://www.chemistry.org/portal/resources/ACS/ACSContent/government/statements/2004_statements/2004_07_global_climate_chg_env.pdf
http://www.agu.org/fora/eos/pdfs/2006EO360008.pdf

Now you might be correct on climate change, it might be all a big hoax, but if you're wrong then what will we end up with. I don't see any issues with becoming a more sustainable economy, and I fail to see how becoming less reliant of non-renewable resources will destory our economy.

 

[canadianblue]

And another reason for construing Global Warming as "religion" is because of the number of proselytizers predicting "the end is nigh". 

If there is a case to be made for "green technologies" (and I believe they have their place when cost effective) then Governor Arnold is closer to the track than Al Gore.

Upon further research...

In reality, neither Robinson's paper nor OISM's petition drive had anything to do with the National Academy of Sciences, which first heard about the petition when its members began calling to ask if the NAS had taken a stand against the Kyoto treaty. Robinson was not even a climate scientist. He was a biochemist with no published research in the field of climatology, and his paper had never been subjected to peer review by anyone with training in the field. In fact, the paper had never been accepted for publication anywhere, let alone in the NAS Proceedings. It was self-published by Robinson, who did the typesetting himself on his own computer. (It was subsequently published as a "review" in Climate Research, which contributed to an editorial scandal at that publication.)

None of the coauthors of "Environmental Effects of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" had any more standing than Robinson himself as a climate change researcher. They included Robinson's 22-year-old son, Zachary, along with astrophysicists Sallie L. Baliunas and Willie Soon.

Both Baliunas and Soon worked with Frederick Seitz at the George C. Marshall Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank where Seitz served as executive director. Funded by a number of right-wing foundations, including Scaife and Bradley, the George C. Marshall Institute does not conduct any original research. It is a conservative think tank that was initially founded during the years of the Reagan administration to advocate funding for Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative--the "Star Wars" weapons program. Today, the Marshall Institute is still a big fan of high-tech weapons. In 1999, its website gave prominent placement to an essay by Col. Simon P. Worden titled "Why We Need the Air-Borne Laser," along with an essay titled "Missile Defense for Populations--What Does It Take? Why Are We Not Doing It?" Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, the Marshall Institute has adapted to the times by devoting much of its firepower to the war against environmentalism, and in particular against the "scaremongers" who raise warnings about global warming.

The NAS issued an unusually blunt formal response to the petition drive. "The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal," it stated in a news release. "The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy." In fact, it pointed out, its own prior published study had shown that "even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises."

In addition to the bulk mailing, OISM's website enables people to add their names to the petition over the Internet, and by June 2000 it claimed to have recruited more than 19,000 scientists. The institute is so lax about screening names, however, that virtually anyone can sign, including for example Al Caruba, a pesticide-industry PR man and conservative ideologue who runs his own website called the "National Anxiety Center." Caruba has no scientific credentials whatsoever, but in addition to signing the Oregon Petition he has editorialized on his own website against the science of global warming, calling it the "biggest hoax of the decade," a "genocidal" campaign by environmentalists who believe that "humanity must be destroyed to 'Save the Earth.' . . . There is no global warming, but there is a global political agenda, comparable to the failed Soviet Union experiment with Communism, being orchestrated by the United Nations, supported by its many Green NGOs, to impose international treaties of every description that would turn the institution into a global government, superceding the sovereignty of every nation in the world."

When questioned in 1998, OISM's Arthur Robinson admitted that only 2,100 signers of the Oregon Petition had identified themselves as physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, or meteorologists, "and of those the greatest number are physicists." This grouping of fields concealed the fact that only a few dozen, at most, of the signatories were drawn from the core disciplines of climate science - such as meteorology, oceanography, and glaciology - and almost none were climate specialists.

The names of the signers are available on the OISM's website, but without listing any institutional affiliations or even city of residence, making it very difficult to determine their credentials or even whether they exist at all. When the Oregon Petition first circulated, in fact, environmental activists successfully added the names of several fictional characters and celebrities to the list, including John Grisham, Michael J. Fox, Drs. Frank Burns, B. J. Honeycutt, and Benjamin Pierce (from the TV show M*A*S*H), an individual by the name of "Dr. Red Wine," and Geraldine Halliwell, formerly known as pop singer Ginger Spice of the Spice Girls. Halliwell's field of scientific specialization was listed as "biology." Even in 2003, the list was loaded with misspellings, duplications, name and title fragments, and names of non-persons, such as company names.

Notwithstanding the shortcomings in Robinson's theory, the oil and coal industries have sponsored several organizations to promote the idea that increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is "good for earth" because it will encourage greater plant growth. The Greening Earth Society, a front group of the Western Fuels Association, has produced a video, titled "The Greening of the Planet Earth Continues," publishes a newsletter called the World Climate Report, and works closely with a group called the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine

In my own personal opinion you should consider finding new sources of information.

 

[canadianblue]

Another interesting tidbit about the OISM.

The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) describes itself as "a small research institute" that studies "biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging." It is headed by Arthur B. Robinson, an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research. OISM also markets a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war.

Several environmental groups questioned dozens of the names: "Perry S. Mason" (the fictitious lawyer?), "Michael J. Fox" (the actor?), "Robert C. Byrd" (the senator?), "John C. Grisham" (the lawyer-author?). And then there's the Spice Girl, a k a. Geraldine Halliwell: The petition listed "Dr. Geri Halliwell" and "Dr. Halliwell."

 

[Kirkhill]

"Now you might be correct on climate change, it might be all a big hoax, but if you're wrong then what will we end up with. I don't see any issues with becoming a more sustainable economy, and I fail to see how becoming less reliant of non-renewable resources will destory our economy."

Climate change is not a hoax.  Climate change happens.  We need to adjust accordingly.  We have already managed through a sea level rise of 120 meters since the North American ice sheets melted and trees started growing in the Fraser Valley.  Some folks drowned.  The rest of us moved to higher ground.  Some areas became deserts with the inhabitants becoming nomads, or piping in water from elsewhere or moving towards the rain.  Our options are still the same.  The world isn't going to end.

I too don't see any issues with a sustainable economy, nor moving to becoming less reliant on non-renewable resources - people, industry and the economy will adapt.  BUT, and here's the big BUT, only if there is enough time make the adjustment.  Fortunately everything that man or God makes wears out over time - and man's stuff wears out faster - so there is ample opportunity to replace old technologies with new ones.  Industry does it all the time, every day.  They are constantly on the lookout for technologies that increase efficiency and decrease waste - remember that for most people in industry "waste" represents unused or squandered raw materials that they have paid for.   If they can get more energy out of flue gases they will - if the costs are right, ie if the technology stands on its own merits.

Consider the revolution in home lighting that went from oil lamps to gas lamps to electric lights in the space of some 40 years.  Or the replacement of coal by hydro power (still an underutilized green house gas free resource because of arguments put up by Greenpeace amongst others).

It is hard not to see those that argue Global Warming as anything more than modern day Luddites insofar as they decry not only the problem (carbon in their view) as the solutions ("clean coal", hydro-dams, nuclear plants and some are already moaning about the Wind Farms destroying sight lines, birds and making noise).  I don't doubt that if we installed tidal systems the operators would be charged with disrupting the migration patterns of green spawn.

It isn't the challenges that I disagree with.  It is the panic.

 

[observor 69]

Climate change is not a hoax.  Climate change happens.  We need to adjust accordingly.  

It is hard not to see those that argue Global Warming as anything more than modern day Luddites insofar as they decry not only the problem (carbon in their view) as the solutions ("clean coal", hydro-dams, nuclear plants and some are already moaning about the Wind Farms destroying sight lines, birds and making noise).  I don't doubt that if we installed tidal systems the operators would be charged with disrupting the migration patterns of green spawn.

It isn't the challenges that I disagree with.  It is the panic.

+1

 

[Haletown]

Martians might be the cause . . . .

http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html

 

[canadianblue]

Michael Crichton, I still laugh whenever people use a science fiction writer as a point of reference to attack climate change.

Kirkhill there is a large difference between man made climate change and natural climate change. The effects of climate change can have extremely negative effects on the planet.

As for the green activists decrying the solutions, this is a great tactic for those with the Republican Party and the right wing, the people that decry them are usually a small minority which is not at all representative of the majority concerned about the environment.

 

[Kirkhill]

Michael Crichton, Cheryl Crow, Al Gore......at least as someone pointed out Crichton has a science background and the good grace to cite his sources.

As for man-made or natural being different - tell that to the people occupying the ground when the North Sea flooded and the English Channel breached at about 6500 BC.

PM me an email address and I will send you a file for your consideration.


It really boggles my mind that the people that argue AGAINST teaching Creationism (which ultimately posits an unchanging - Edit: and young - world) and FOR teaching Evolution (which posits an ever-changing -Edit: and ancient - world) are the same people that argue that our world is UNCHANGING unless man changes it.  At the same time they argue against man taking actions against natural changes.

Change happens. We adapt.  Period. Full Stop. Punkt.

 

[vonGarvin]

...I still laugh whenever people use a science fiction writer as a point of reference to attack climate change.

Would you laugh if someone quoted Arthur C. Clarke on something? 
(For those too lazy to google him, A.C. Clarke wrote a lot of science fiction.  In 1945, he proposed that geostationary satellites would be ideal telecommunications relays.  He also wrote a lot of science fact stuff, though remembered best for 2001: A Space Odyssey")

 

[Kirkhill]

Would you laugh if someone quoted Arthur C. Clarke on something? 
(For those too lazy to google him, A.C. Clarke wrote a lot of science fiction.  In 1945, he proposed that geostationary satellites would be ideal telecommunications relays.  He also wrote a lot of science fact stuff, though remembered best for 2001: A Space Odyssey")

I'd forgotten about my favourite RAF Radar Tech.  Good one Mein Herr.

 

[canadianblue]

Michael Crichton, Cheryl Crow, Al Gore......at least as someone pointed out Crichton has a science background and the good grace to cite his sources.

As for man-made or natural being different - tell that to the people occupying the ground when the North Sea flooded and the English Channel breached at about 6500 BC.

PM me an email address and I will send you a file for your consideration.


It really boggles my mind that the people that argue AGAINST teaching Creationism (which ultimately posits an unchanging - Edit: and young - world) and FOR teaching Evolution (which posits an ever-changing -Edit: and ancient - world) are the same people that argue that our world is UNCHANGING unless man changes it.  At the same time they argue against man taking actions against natural changes.

Change happens. We adapt.  Period. Full Stop. Punkt.

The funny thing is some of the people most adamantly against fighting climate change are also organizations like Focus on the Family who are firmly anti-science. Doesn't it say something when the scientists who actually have a clue throw their support behind fighting climate change. As well their is a difference between man made change and natural change, if you pump carbon dioxide into your car what will usually happen.

Yeah, humans can have no negative impact on the world. In fact the other day I decided to throw all of my empty oil containers in some creek.

Michael Crichton, Cheryl Crow, Al Gore......at least as someone pointed out Crichton has a science background and the good grace to cite his sources.

Sorry for the sarcasm, but all of these organizations apparently have nothing to do with science either.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/document.asp?latest=1&id=3222
http://books.nap.edu/html/climatechange/summary.html
http://www.geosociety.org/aboutus/position10.htm
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html
http://www.stateclimate.org/publications/files/aascclimatepolicy.pdf
http://www.ama.com.au/web.nsf/doc/WOOD-5ZD6BT
http://www.chemistry.org/portal/resources/ACS/ACSContent/government/statements/2004_statements/2004_07_global_climate_chg_env.pdf
http://www.agu.org/fora/eos/pdfs/2006EO360008.pdf

 

[larry Strong]

I don't think anyone is denying that man has had some influence on the climate, but to blame it all on humans is ludicrous.

You with 749 Comm Sqn?I suppose that National geographic does not know what they are talking about either!!

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/05/08/neptune-news/

http://seoblackhat.com/2007/03/04/global-warming-on-mars-pluto-triton-and-jupiter/