gallup.com— 48% of Americans now believe that the seriousness of global warming is generally exaggerated, up from 41% in 2009 and 31% in 1997, when Gallup first asked the question.
Mar 11, 2010View in Crawl 4
I dugg you because some scientists did fudge data, but I am sure a lot of scientists didn't lie, most in fact. But on the other side you have people who literally say "LOL it snowed in Florida global warming is false", which is just as stupid. I don't think man is causing global warming, and cap and trade is a terrible idea, but more research is needed to find the right conclusion.
As a mattrer of fact - I am a singularitarian and what you suggest made me laugh. I am of the opinion this concept global warming is real and I had the conviction, say oh 1987. I read about methane clathrate and rotting permafrost and containing energy in oscilating molecules back in the last century before it was all a fad. Oddly enough at the same time I always was a niven-bred techno-fetishist, pro-industrial, and radically pro-progress. I don't care what happens, as long as all people get richer, all people get more existential and material freedoms, freedom increased radically, we alll get more internet and wildly more education. At the same time I vote socialist and I subscribe to the Venus Project newsletters. But as you are free to spread your memes asserting global whatever is 'warmism' (which is prrrettty far from the actual reality of the situation) and *only* the sun is to blame, and we can never suffer more damage from reducing emissions over abandoning economic growth - you and me I simply have a different persuasion. Mine is we are dead as a species before 2200 if we sit around twidlling our thumb. That's right, if we do not find solutions before 2050 to a range of problems (other than the warmism bit), we will enter a state of rapid decline, we will lose all of our modernity, we will slowly sink in a world that is toxic and by 2100 we will be left with a few hundred million human beings on this world - which will slowly spiral down to next to nothing in the years thereafter. CLEARLY what I advocate would be 'a belief system' to you, but whatever you do, please don't go around with that bulls**t attitide that is effectively a disease in the US and label everything ion terms of yes/no or evil/good or blue/red or liberal/conservative or socialist/freedom. I live outside the US, in the world of shades of grey and exceptions and confusion. In my world we think, we do 'subtle', we do 'nuance', we compromize, we negotiate, we speculate, we hypothesize and we theorize. I am all for letting *whatever it takes, whoever can* find solutions. Not just this alleged 'free market' where you sacrifice your firstborn every year. And being a singularitarian I have some hope technological development can provide us with solutions (and a whole range of new problems) pretty soon. I gave you a great cop out. After having read my position you could have replied "Ok, he's right, we'll see in ten years". But like any old witch-finder general you didn't and here you go again stomping out heresy and making a fool of yourself. Your protests stink of insecurity. I placed a wager. In ten years we'll know for sure. Why not nod and wait? Why protest? My positions is 'enjoy your ten years'. You position is 'and will you eat your shoe in ten years' ? If you are right, I will no doubt live a fulfilling life and mumble embarrassed every so often when someone reminds me. If I am right, trust me, humanity has a problem in ten years and yes, democratic majorities will be screaming for immediate solutions. Think 'war on terror' times hundred. Again; *please* read 'hot, flat & crowded'
Preventing alarmists - who generally happen to be radical Leftists pushing very socialist "solutions" to the problem (what a coincidence!) - from carrying out agendas that would be disastrous to the economy and to the free market as a whole is NOT "rolling the dice," and "no statistically significant warming in fifteen years" is not "maybe."
Global warming is purely a hoax to try and concentrate more power in the hands of government and to redistribute more of our wealth. If anybody does not see this they have blinders on. It's a total sham. Why else would the first instinct be to tax the hell out of everybody. I'm sure the planet really cares about taxes. The altruistic smokescreen was transparent as hell.
> is it your position that we do absolutely nothingI'm not saying do nothing. Personally I think nuclear is a nice approach to global warming. But we should keep global warming in perspective. It's a potential threat, not a given one, and it is just one threat among many. Currently long term economic meltdown is looking like a bigger threat to me, at least here in the US.
A brief scare about global cooling that was largely media hype and quickly disproven is not the same as a theory that's been around for, what, over 20 years? I guess I'll paraphrase an argument I've used in previous comments...Do you deny that greenhouse gases cause the greenhouse effect? If so, then you must believe that Venus doesn't exist...it's the hottest planet in the solar system because of the greenhouse effect.Do you deny that humans are emitting, and will indefinitely emit (unless something is changed), greenhouse gases? If so, then you must be claiming that cars, factories, and much of industrial society don't exist.Do you deny that greenhouse gas levels have risen? They HAVE risen, so unless you're claiming that all the science indicating an atmospheric rise is false, then you can't make an argument there...or perhaps......do you claim that earth isn't getting warmer? Only in that case you'd have to explain why the greenhouse effect that normally applies doesn't apply to man-made greenhouse gases for some bizarre reason!But all that is pointless anyway because like we've both said, alternative energy is a good idea regardless because it makes a hell of a lot more economic sense and practical sense for our longterm well being.I'll check out the zero-point stuff, it sounds cool.
> "Climatology is experimentally limited... not an experimental science at all and can never be"Whodathunkit? Although I think your comment is more appropriate to the narrow field of Man-made Global Warming, and not the entire science of climatology.The point remains, one incorrect prediction invalidates a theory. Since man-made global warming "theory" cannot predict climate -- for individual areas or for the Earth as a whole -- it was never anything more than a vague concept based on computer models.In other words, not a scientific theory at all.While there may be a mountain of circumstantial evidence regarding this imaginary hobgoblin called "Climate Change," there's nothing to suggest that man-made CO2 has ever been more than an insignificant factor.
Should we be surprised that the US public is responding to the millions spent by fossil fuels companies to con us into inaction? Thanks to well crafted propaganda, the US public once thought that Iraq was behind 9/11, that smoking was harmless, and that evolution was a hoax perpetrated by biologists. We are prone to believe only what we want to believe. That makes us very easy marks.Meanwhile, after the largest, longest scientific inquiry of all time, every scientific review body on the planet is united in the opinion that we are cooking the climate, and that we will pay for that sooner or later. Only, if we pay later, we will pay much, much more.
northmassMar 11, 2010
I dugg you because some scientists did fudge data, but I am sure a lot of scientists didn't lie, most in fact. But on the other side you have people who literally say "LOL it snowed in Florida global warming is false", which is just as stupid. I don't think man is causing global warming, and cap and trade is a terrible idea, but more research is needed to find the right conclusion.
vikingcoderMar 12, 2010
"Climate change" became the terminology of choice under the Bush administration after the Republican consultant Frank Luntz determined that people were less likely to be stirred to action with the terminology "climate change" as opposed to "global warming." <a class="user" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange" rel="nofollow">http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2003/mar/04/ ...</a> <a class="user" href="http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2008/04/08/why-those-sneaky-enviros-changed-from-quot-global-warming-quot-to-quot-climate-change-quot.aspx" rel="nofollow">http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/ ...</a> Luntz wrote: "'Climate change' is less frightening than 'global warming.' ... While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge"Both terms, "climate change" and "global warming", are accurate. It is called "global warming" because the averaged temperature is rising. It is called "climate change" because the increased energy (i.e. temperature) won't affect all locales equally. "Climate change" isn't a new term; it's the IPCC, not IPGW & the first assessment report was released in 1990. It has been called "climate change" since 1975. <a class="user" href="http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12181" rel="nofollow">http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12181</a> <a class="user" href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/189/4201/460" rel="nofollow">http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/189 ...</a>The correlation between sun and climate ended in the 1970s when the modern global warming trend began. The sun has shown a slight cooling trend over the last 3 decades. Not only is the sun not contributing to global warming, it has had a slight, long term cooling effect. <a class="user" href="http://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm" rel="nofollow">http://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspot ...</a> <a class="user" href="http://skepticalscience.com/Determining-the-long-term-solar-trend.html" rel="nofollow">http://skepticalscience.com/Determining-the-long-t ...</a> (This site provides numerous references to primary peer-reviewed journal papers & datasets.)To forestall the usual response: Yes, the Sun is the primary source of heat here on Earth. When the solar intensity is steady, or slightly decreasing, and the temperature is significantly increasing, it can be reasonably stated that there is another forcing agent in the mix.Vapid conspiracy notions do not cause the published scientific research to disappear.
dagonwebnl2Mar 12, 2010
As a mattrer of fact - I am a singularitarian and what you suggest made me laugh. I am of the opinion this concept global warming is real and I had the conviction, say oh 1987. I read about methane clathrate and rotting permafrost and containing energy in oscilating molecules back in the last century before it was all a fad. Oddly enough at the same time I always was a niven-bred techno-fetishist, pro-industrial, and radically pro-progress. I don't care what happens, as long as all people get richer, all people get more existential and material freedoms, freedom increased radically, we alll get more internet and wildly more education. At the same time I vote socialist and I subscribe to the Venus Project newsletters. But as you are free to spread your memes asserting global whatever is 'warmism' (which is prrrettty far from the actual reality of the situation) and *only* the sun is to blame, and we can never suffer more damage from reducing emissions over abandoning economic growth - you and me I simply have a different persuasion. Mine is we are dead as a species before 2200 if we sit around twidlling our thumb. That's right, if we do not find solutions before 2050 to a range of problems (other than the warmism bit), we will enter a state of rapid decline, we will lose all of our modernity, we will slowly sink in a world that is toxic and by 2100 we will be left with a few hundred million human beings on this world - which will slowly spiral down to next to nothing in the years thereafter. CLEARLY what I advocate would be 'a belief system' to you, but whatever you do, please don't go around with that bulls**t attitide that is effectively a disease in the US and label everything ion terms of yes/no or evil/good or blue/red or liberal/conservative or socialist/freedom. I live outside the US, in the world of shades of grey and exceptions and confusion. In my world we think, we do 'subtle', we do 'nuance', we compromize, we negotiate, we speculate, we hypothesize and we theorize. I am all for letting *whatever it takes, whoever can* find solutions. Not just this alleged 'free market' where you sacrifice your firstborn every year. And being a singularitarian I have some hope technological development can provide us with solutions (and a whole range of new problems) pretty soon. I gave you a great cop out. After having read my position you could have replied "Ok, he's right, we'll see in ten years". But like any old witch-finder general you didn't and here you go again stomping out heresy and making a fool of yourself. Your protests stink of insecurity. I placed a wager. In ten years we'll know for sure. Why not nod and wait? Why protest? My positions is 'enjoy your ten years'. You position is 'and will you eat your shoe in ten years' ? If you are right, I will no doubt live a fulfilling life and mumble embarrassed every so often when someone reminds me. If I am right, trust me, humanity has a problem in ten years and yes, democratic majorities will be screaming for immediate solutions. Think 'war on terror' times hundred. Again; *please* read 'hot, flat & crowded'
glynthMar 13, 2010
Preventing alarmists - who generally happen to be radical Leftists pushing very socialist "solutions" to the problem (what a coincidence!) - from carrying out agendas that would be disastrous to the economy and to the free market as a whole is NOT "rolling the dice," and "no statistically significant warming in fifteen years" is not "maybe."
bearkillMar 13, 2010
Global warming is purely a hoax to try and concentrate more power in the hands of government and to redistribute more of our wealth. If anybody does not see this they have blinders on. It's a total sham. Why else would the first instinct be to tax the hell out of everybody. I'm sure the planet really cares about taxes. The altruistic smokescreen was transparent as hell.
linuxwesMar 13, 2010
> is it your position that we do absolutely nothingI'm not saying do nothing. Personally I think nuclear is a nice approach to global warming. But we should keep global warming in perspective. It's a potential threat, not a given one, and it is just one threat among many. Currently long term economic meltdown is looking like a bigger threat to me, at least here in the US.
thetehMar 13, 2010
A brief scare about global cooling that was largely media hype and quickly disproven is not the same as a theory that's been around for, what, over 20 years? I guess I'll paraphrase an argument I've used in previous comments...Do you deny that greenhouse gases cause the greenhouse effect? If so, then you must believe that Venus doesn't exist...it's the hottest planet in the solar system because of the greenhouse effect.Do you deny that humans are emitting, and will indefinitely emit (unless something is changed), greenhouse gases? If so, then you must be claiming that cars, factories, and much of industrial society don't exist.Do you deny that greenhouse gas levels have risen? They HAVE risen, so unless you're claiming that all the science indicating an atmospheric rise is false, then you can't make an argument there...or perhaps......do you claim that earth isn't getting warmer? Only in that case you'd have to explain why the greenhouse effect that normally applies doesn't apply to man-made greenhouse gases for some bizarre reason!But all that is pointless anyway because like we've both said, alternative energy is a good idea regardless because it makes a hell of a lot more economic sense and practical sense for our longterm well being.I'll check out the zero-point stuff, it sounds cool.
brookedunneMar 13, 2010
> "Climatology is experimentally limited... not an experimental science at all and can never be"Whodathunkit? Although I think your comment is more appropriate to the narrow field of Man-made Global Warming, and not the entire science of climatology.The point remains, one incorrect prediction invalidates a theory. Since man-made global warming "theory" cannot predict climate -- for individual areas or for the Earth as a whole -- it was never anything more than a vague concept based on computer models.In other words, not a scientific theory at all.While there may be a mountain of circumstantial evidence regarding this imaginary hobgoblin called "Climate Change," there's nothing to suggest that man-made CO2 has ever been more than an insignificant factor.
godfreyMar 13, 2010
Should we be surprised that the US public is responding to the millions spent by fossil fuels companies to con us into inaction? Thanks to well crafted propaganda, the US public once thought that Iraq was behind 9/11, that smoking was harmless, and that evolution was a hoax perpetrated by biologists. We are prone to believe only what we want to believe. That makes us very easy marks.Meanwhile, after the largest, longest scientific inquiry of all time, every scientific review body on the planet is united in the opinion that we are cooking the climate, and that we will pay for that sooner or later. Only, if we pay later, we will pay much, much more.
kingbpdMar 31, 2010
I'm pretty sure his only goal is to finish flight training school.
user500Apr 21, 2010
there are also studies showing the supremacy of whites too, want to discuss?