Jump to content

Global Warming Video?


smokingwreckage
 Share

Recommended Posts

Oh I know both sides are doing it. And it's not a scientific debate but a political one. These videos don't present anything new, and they have no impact on the scientific debate whatsoever. They're meant solely to sway public opinion through an extremely one sided presentation of the issues. This video is no better or worse than others of its kind.

 

On the scientific front however it's different. The thing is scientists aren't deeply divided, and it has been decided on. The consensus clearly favors one side. Does that doesn't mean it's necessarily true, but it IS what current scientific results point to, and what the vast majority of the scientific community agree on. Outside of math, you won't get definitive proof of anything ever. Consensus is as good as it gets. Sad but true. The minority understandably want to turn this into something that has to be "proven", and point out that consensus isn't proof. Very true. But this isn't math. Sadly.

 

You will be able to find skeptics on just about any issue, the existence of skeptics, even smart scientists with good arguments in their favor, doesn't mean the scientists are "deeply divided" or that the issue has not been "decided on yet".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 48
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I also think it's quite funny that we somehow expect the "side" that is best able to distill complex scientific models down to something ordinary people can pretend to understand, must be right. I mean is climate research truly so simplistic that you or I can sit down, watch a 75 minute show and then reject 30 years of research? Should we truly believe that shooting down a presentation by Al, equates to all global warming research being inherently flawed?

 

The arguments presented might seem good to you and me, ordinary people. But do they seem like good arguments to climate scientists?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you look at current levels of funding, there are BILLIONS of US$ being spent on this. People whose wealth is dependent on "proving" man-made global warming will do or say whatever it takes to keep the milk flowing from the cash cow. The issuing of research grants is dependent on what you are trying to prove - try to research the politically incorrect side and watch the cash cow dry up (as was reported in the last 2-3 years by climate scientist whose funding was cut for researching the wrong side).

 

The skeptics make the claim that the science has contradictions that need to be resolved. The Orthodox followers of AlGore's Global Warming Cult claim that everything has been determined and that every scientist agrees with them. This goes from the organizers of the movement all the way down to their lowest operatives. Many of these people label anyone who doesn't agree with everything their movement says as being identical to the Holocaust deniers or somehow "paid off" by the energy industry.

 

Too many of the activist are treating AlGore's movie as if it was the truth, instead of the eco-propaganda it really is. It was a movie, so I expect it to be about as accurate as "Braveheart" or "300". :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vejlin; actually there is a lot of division over very important aspects of the current orthodoxy, which itself is a bundle of ideas, interpretations and theories. There is one undisputed fact; the world has warmed up since 1975. Pretty much anything beyond that is in fact being debated and a proportion of what is being put to us through the media is indisputably incorrect.

 

The reason the current bundle of "truths" need to be proven is that many aspects are very, very, very serious. Even partial compliance with Kyoto (note, that no current signatory of the treaty is even close to compliance) would cost literally trillions of dollars and according to many parts of current climate orthodoxy would not actually achieve anything. The point is that it's not a win-win.

 

The steps necessary to wind carbon emissions backward are draconian and probably involve eliminating entire sections of the economy. Even the most enthusiastic proponents of Kyoto have only slowed emission growth somewhat- most have slowed emission growth less than the US.

 

Worse yet, some of the current orthodoxy (in the political sphere especially) actually contradicts specialist knowledge in particular fields, to the extent that many of our steps to reduce carbon emissions will not merely fail to reduce emissions, they will penalise low emission industries and activities in favour of higher emission industries and activities, because carbon accounting is horribly sloppy and our knowledge of the carbon cycle is laughable. The entire field has become so politicised than any objective advance of knowledge seems impossible at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well now you're moving on to discuss how we should react to global warming. That really has nothing to do with the program we're discussing. Lets discuss that in another thread.

 

Expecting to see "undisputed facts" before being convinced is not really something that works for most fields of research. Most things can be disputed. There is a very clear consensus, which is as close as you get to scientific fact in most fields of study. Which is why I consider the subject closed (until a time when further data/research is available to shift consensus).

 

Why is it this video is seen as a good thing by so many? I mean it doesn't present any new arguments to the scientific debate. It is clearly partisan. Using a very one sided presentation of a subset of the issues this video tries to convince normal people that the minority of scientists are right and that the consensus is wrong. How is this a good thing? Can we truly expect climate research to be such a simplistic and trivial science that 75 minutes of arguments from one side can effectively nullify the arguments for antropogenic climate change?

 

I agree that the influence of politics into research is a bad thing. The political manipulation from both sides of the fence is creating an environment where it's very difficult (maybe even impossible) to conduct propper science. But am I the only one who thinks it's bad no matter who is doing the manipulating? Is this video itself not just yet another political trick to try to affect science (or how we react to science)?

 

As a person who isn't a climate scientist, why should I trust a one sided and simplistic presentation over the very clear consensus? Am I to assume that after 75 minutes of propaganda I know more about climate research than the actual scientists working with this stuff on a daily basis? I mean the very same arguments haven't shifted the consensus among researchers. I firmly believe the politics should leave the science alone. The influence should be happening in the other direction. I side with the consensus. Not because I believe it's infallible, but because doing anything else would be a political statement. I can't see siding with the skeptics as anything other than an ideologically motivated action. Unless of course you're actually qualified through working with climate research. In which case keep going, scientific method relies on people like you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of the details I've seen on the warming models used by the "Manmade CO2 is causing global warming" crowd excludes factors like the changes in solar output. So the models predicting doomsday warming generally neglect the source of energy from their calculations.

 

Why?

 

Because they can't get government grants for research to change the output of the sun. Al Gore's company can't sell you sun credits (like the carbon credits they already sell) to cover this. But they can get a lot of money to point blame at CO2 emissions and then use that as a good reason to prevent the developing world from modernizing.

 

That temperature started to increase after 1975, following a period of ~30 years of decreasing temperatures, that is a "consensus fact". The cause of it is not established, only one side has done a good job of shouting down and silencing everyone who challenges them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I can tell the changes in solar activity aren't being neglected, it is simply believed that the global warming contribution from this source isn't the only source, but that greenhouse gasses are significant enough to warrant precautions. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/...51001100950.htm for instance.

 

From that it sounds to me like changing solar activity IS taken into account in the models. As well as numerous other factors. Seems to me there has been misinformation being spread about it being the norm that scientists discount changes in solar activity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vejlin; there isn't a clear consensus. Really, I can't say much more than that since "consensus" is a loaded and subjective term and we're just going to get into a "is so!" "isn't so!" type of argument, which is silly. So, let's chalk that up to "agree to disagree", eh? Either that or we can take it to Beekeepers, where the uninitiated have no idea that all we do is drink beer and argue over who would win out of a pirate, a ninja, and TOTAL VIKING POWER!!!

 

Is the video distorting? Now THAT I am interested in. If you have some data they've misrepresented then I do want to know.

 

Finally, it seems to be an irreconcilable difference between the European perspective and the US perspective that Europeans doubt their own ability to discern truth at the level of expert or technical discussion, while yanks tend to think that a clear explanation will do fine, including quantum mechanics and aeronautical engineering. Australians have traditionally disregarded Europeans, Yanks, Experts, and pretty much everyone else, so if we're ignoring climatologists that's nothing new :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only thing I've seen in this video that I think would concern you is the single researcher who claims he was misled. Many of the interviews have been cut into such short segments that it's impossible to tell if the interviewed people's views are being correctly presented. For that I think we'll have to wait and see if more people feel abused.

 

As for agreeing to disagree that's fine with me, that's often where two two of us end up anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's an interesting article.

 

http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publi...272612158.shtml

 

 

Global Warming: Moving Towards Metrosexuals

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

 

 

By Daniel Clark

Mar 17, 2007

 

The latest point of emphasis in the global warming movement is that cattle farming endangers the planet by producing too much methane. So now, steaks and hamburgers are classified as instruments of destruction, along with large vehicles, lawn mowers, and charcoal grills. It can't be much longer before cowboy movies, cigars and hockey are held to be enemies of the earth as well.

 

This has got to be the most blatant assault on guyhood since ABC moved Coach to the same night as Roseanne, and turned Hayden Fox into Phil Donahue. It's a wonder that liberals don't cut to the chase, by simply claiming that global warming is caused by testosterone. Then, they could make public school nurses siphon the offending fluid from the boys during health class.

 

Many environmentalists believe that the earth is a living organism, personified by the Greek goddess Gaia. Conveniently, it turns out that Gaia is a shrew, who demands that her men be reduced to henpecked, metrosexual noodles. Manliness makes Gaia angry, and we wouldn't like her when she's angry, because she'll turn into a green monster and start smashing everything to bits. Hell hath no fury like an earth goddess exposed to excessive cattle-produced methane emissions.

 

Wouldn't it be more plausible if a few items like styling gel, latte makers and tofu were said to destroy the planet as well? Perhaps, but that would not serve the purpose of expanding the base of the global warming movement. Since no liberal cause can produce much support on its own, any one of them must ally itself with all other liberal causes, so that they can pool their resources.

 

That's why it's almost impossible to distinguish the original purpose of a left-wing political rally. What starts out being an 'anti-war' demonstration will invariably become an convention of environmentalists, gun control advocates, pro-abortionists, animal rights activists, racial Balkanists, and outright Communists, because that's the only way to prevent the size of the crowd from being laughably small. Therefore, environmental alarmists must incorporate other causes within their own, in order to keep their core of support relatively large and energized. Clearly, they've determined their alliance with the feminists to be vital to these ends.

 

It's not coincidental that the icon of the global warming movement is former vice president Al Gore, who, during the 2000 presidential campaign, sought advice from feminist author Naomi Wolf on how to become an "alpha male." Needless to say, she did not suggest that he scarf down a steak sandwich while sitting behind the wheel of a riding mower. Instead, her solution was to dress him in earth tones, as if obsessing over his wardrobe was any way to attain guydom. Never is it manly to ask, "does this make my butt look big," even if you want the answer to be yes.

 

For Wolf to tell Gore that he'd become an "alpha male" just by wearing the right clothing is a little like a mother patronizing her young child. She probably got the idea when Gore put a bucket over his head and said, "Look, Ms. Wolf, I'm an astronaut," and she replied, "Yes, of course you are, dear."

 

Images of global destruction being more powerful than images of normalcy and stability, Gore and friends are bound to win the competition for people's emotions. Hence, they are now deterring any analysis of the issue, by calling skeptics "global warming deniers," a not very subtle comparison to neo-Nazis. If we succumb to this intimidation like a bunch of namby-pamby rice cake eaters, the debate will be lost for good.

 

Thus, the global warming movement seeks to repress guyhood in order to perpetuate itself. If a guy is shown a picture of a sad-looking polar bear adrift on an ice floe, his first thought will be something like, "I've heard that bear steaks are tough, but maybe if you marinated them in beer, they'd turn out all right." At that point, the alarmists' emotional ploy is foiled. In a world without guy stuff, however, his vacant mind may be invaded by irrationalities like, "Who will take care of the

polar bears' children?"

 

In this chicken-and-the-egg scenario, the success of the global warming movement is both the cause and effect of our society's emasculation. It would have never gotten this far if the "Nineties Man" hadn't paved the way. When "I feel your pain" became a successful presidential campaign slogan, we should have known that charcoal-grilled steaks would soon be on the endangered list.

--Daniel Clark is a Staff Writer for the New Media Alliance
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...