Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 4598

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,368

    Man-Made Climate Change: Issues and debates

    Quote Originally Posted by Igor_Goldenberg
    I think their [Greens] environmental policy is as sound as their other policies.
    Exactly. See The Great Media Swindle About Global Warming.

    The Greens are the likely recipients of former Democrat votes as the latter party disappears from politics.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  2. #2
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    5,667
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Professor Carl Wunsch claims he was completely misrepresented when his interview was presented as part of the documentary.

    Regarding your link, why is it that Bob Carter's name is always the one that comes up when people are trying to assert that climate change isn't happening or isn't our fault?

  3. #3
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,368
    Quote Originally Posted by pax
    Professor Carl Wunsch claims he was completely misrepresented when his interview was presented as part of the documentary.
    Doesn't seem 'misrepresented' in the factual matters, such as gases being less soluble in warm water than cold. The main point was that alGore's An Inconvenient Truth superimposed graphs of CO2 trends v temperature trends, to assert that the CO2 caused the temperature rise. But The Great Global Warming Swindle showed that even according to alGore's data, the temperature rose before the CO2 increase, so cause and effect, if any, should be reversed. The film proposed that the rise in temp caused decrease in CO2 solubility resulting in release from the ocean, as Wunsch said would happen.

    Quote Originally Posted by pax
    Regarding your link, why is it that Bob Carter's name is always the one that comes up when people are trying to assert that climate change isn't happening or isn't our fault?
    Why is alGore's name, and that of aging rockers, the name that always comes up when global warming is alleged to be the greatest threat we face. Why should we even take them seriously when they jetset around the world, spewing out greenhouse gases, to tell us to drive less? And why should the average homeowner cut down on energy when alGore's house uses more energy in a month than the average American home uses in a year.

    Yes, if someone told you that you need to go on a diet to lose weight, the truth of that statement is independent of his own weight. But would you listen if he was a 130-kg glutton with a huge round gut who gorged on rich foods? No, you would demand that he leads by example (cf. he should take the log out of his own eye before removing the speck in yours).

    An Inconvenient Truth is likely about 10% true and 90% propaganda, while The Great Global Warming Swindle is likely 90% true and 10% propaganda, but "our" ABC decreed that only the latter had to be "balanced" by a hatchet job, as per its usual 'objectivity".
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  4. #4
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Bristol
    Posts
    1,977
    Here is some critique from aussie scientists- THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE - SCIENTISTS RESPOND

    Also, anyone in Canberra might be interested in going to this Debunking 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' at the ANU. It is today from 1:00 PM till 2:30 PM.

  5. #5
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,368
    If you want to see both sides present their case, as opposed to the alarmists' case unopposed that the anointed want you to see, see Climate Realists Beat Alarmists in New York Debate. The debate was on the proposition "Global Warming Is Not a Crisis".

    A pre-debate poll of audience members indicated that by a 2 to 1 margin (57 percent to 29 percent, with 14 percent undecided) they believed global warming has become a crisis. After the debate, however, the audience indicated by 46 percent to 42 percent they do not believe it is a crisis, with 12 percent undecided.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  6. #6
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    244
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    A pre-debate poll of audience members indicated that by a 2 to 1 margin (57 percent to 29 percent, with 14 percent undecided) they believed global warming has become a crisis. After the debate, however, the audience indicated by 46 percent to 42 percent they do not believe it is a crisis, with 12 percent undecided.
    So what. Unless the members of the audience were qualified climate scientists, the audience poll is (in a scientific context) meaningless. The results of the post-debate poll just mean that the speakers who supported the proposition were more sophisticated orators than the speakers who opposed it.

  7. #7
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    5,667
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    An Inconvenient Truth is likely about 10% true and 90% propaganda, while The Great Global Warming Swindle is likely 90% true and 10% propaganda, but "our" ABC decreed that only the latter had to be "balanced" by a hatchet job, as per its usual 'objectivity".
    90% true? That's just complete rubbish. It was a completely one-sided polemic. He presented the evidence that was convenient to his conclusion, and ignored (substantial) evidence to the contrary.

    Now I am not defending Al Gore - and I cannot attest to the substance of his film since I haven't actually seen it. It may well be just as polemic and one-sided as "Swindle", but that doesn't make "Swindle" gospel truth. I actually think both sides of the debate would benefit from speaking with a little less certainty on their assertions on what is or isn't happening with regard to the global climate.

  8. #8
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,368
    Quote Originally Posted by pax
    90% true? That's just complete rubbish. It was a completely one-sided polemic. He presented the evidence that was convenient to his conclusion, and ignored (substantial) evidence to the contrary.
    Rubbish yourself. It was the evidence to the contrary of the one-sided global warming alarmism that the media constantly indoctrinate us in.

    Quote Originally Posted by pax
    I actually think both sides of the debate would benefit from speaking with a little less certainty on their assertions on what is or isn't happening with regard to the global climate.
    Not a bad thought. So we should hold back on signing futile documents like Kyoto (that even Kyoto itself can't even stick to), or imposing carbon taxes or advocating carbon <strike>indulgences</strike> offsets. And more debates like the above should be shown.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  9. #9
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    5,667
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Not a bad thought. So we should hold back on signing futile documents like Kyoto (that even Kyoto itself can't even stick to), or imposing carbon taxes or advocating carbon <strike>indulgences</strike> offsets. And more debates like the above should be shown.
    It is not necessary for one to be certain of an adverse outcome in order for mitigating actions to be justified. Just ask anyone involved in risk analysis.

  10. #10
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    5,667
    If this is accurate, it could be a silver bullet for tackling carbon emissions:

    http://www.solveclimate.com/blog/200...gy-has-arrived

  11. #11
    Account Permanently Banned Axiom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    4,383

    Oil Baron Al Gore Disses Climate Change Skeptics

    Oil Baron Al Gore Disses Climate Change Skeptics

    Kurt Nimmo
    Prison Planet
    Friday, December 21, 2007

    Al Gore didn’t like it one darn bit:

    “More than 400 scientists challenge claims by former Vice President Al Gore and the United Nations about the threat of man-made global warming, a new Senate minority report says,” reports the Washington Times. “The scientists — many of whom are current or former members of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that shares the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Mr. Gore for publicizing a climate crisis — cast doubt on the ’scientific consensus’ that man-made global warming imperils the planet.”

    Gore, as you may recall, has declared the debate is over on climate change. Like a Soviet bureaucrat, he has testily demanded nobody pay attention to the skeptics and we get busy transforming society in the way envisioned by the IPCC and the United Nations. In other words, it is time to implement Agenda 21. Get ready to be moved off the land into a crowded urban ghetto — for the sake of the snail darters, don’t you know. It’ll be just like a scene out of Soylent Green.

    As for the 400 scientists challenging Gore and the IPCC, Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider “said 25 or 30 of the scientists may have received funding from Exxon Mobile Corp.,” an accusation rejected by Exxon Mobile.


    Gore should not be the one talking about greedy oil corporations. As it turns out, the Gore family “owns at least a quarter of a million dollars’ worth of Occidental stock.” Back in the 1990s, when Gore was in the White House, Colombia’s U’wa tribe had a bone to pick with Occidental. In 2000, Ken Silverstein wrote for the Nation:

    One of the world’s hottest battles between indigenous groups and multinational oil companies is heating up in Colombia, where Occidental Petroleum is seeking to drill on land claimed by the 5,000-member U’wa tribe. Early this year, the Colombian government deployed several hundred soldiers to guard workers building a road to the multibillion-dollar project. That led to a clash in February when security forces used tear gas to break up an anti-Occidental demonstration of several hundred Indians. Three children reportedly drowned when they fell into a river as they fled from government troops.

    But it is not strictly oil: “In the sixties, the Gores discovered zinc ore near land they owned in Tennessee. Through a company subsidiary Hammer bought the land for $160,000–twice the amount offered by the only other bidder. He swiftly sold the land back to Al Gore Sr. and agreed to pay him $20,000 a year for mining rights. After receiving his first payment, Gore Sr. sold the land for $140,000 to Gore Jr., who has received a $20,000 check nearly every year since he acquired it. Strangest of all, Occidental has never actually mined the land. Al Jr.’s coffers swelled further in 1985 when he began leasing the land to Union Zinc, an Occidental competitor.”

    But never mind. It’s not about oil or Exxon Mobile, it’s about discrediting the opposition, as usual.

    Everybody naturally hates oil barons.

    It doesn’t matter if Al Gore is one.

  12. #12
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,488
    My response to Ax's quote and all the subsequent Kierkegaard stuff moved here

  13. #13
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,368
    The great organic myths: Why organic foods are an indulgence the world can't afford

    The Independent (UK), 1 May 2008

    They're not healthier or better for the environment — and they're packed with pesticides. In an age of climate change and shortages, these foods are an indugence the world can't afford, argues environmental expert Rob Johnston
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  14. #14
    Account Permanently Banned Axiom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    4,383

  15. #15
    CC Candidate Master Bruce Oates's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    40

    Climate Change Is Irreversable ??

    The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration today claim that climate change is irreversable for the next 1000 years.
    That's a broad statement & not allowing for scientific advances that will be
    possible over that period.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Evangelism and Climate Change
    By Ian Murray in forum Religion and Science
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 11-04-2017, 11:24 AM
  2. Climate Change (read bottom up)
    By antichrist in forum Politics
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 11-10-2010, 01:00 PM
  3. Climate Change Is Irreversable ??
    By Bruce Oates in forum Religion and Science
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 28-01-2009, 09:55 PM
  4. The Death of Climate Change Consensus
    By Spiny Norman in forum Politics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 21-12-2007, 11:38 AM
  5. Pentagon Report on Climate Change
    By Cat in forum Non-Chess
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 21-06-2004, 10:50 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •