Global Warming Validated

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

How could Mike suck on global warming? What exactly would you put in your mouth?...

Mike will find a way to suck anything. Trust me.

 

 

 

J/K MIKE I STILL <3 U!

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

I bet you would know...

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I bet you would know...

Well, that *is* what I was implying, you sly dog, you.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

I know. I was just making it more obvious to some of our TSM family that can't quite catch on to subliminable posts like that.

 

Faggot, and now I have the proof...

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I know. I was just making it more obvious to some of our TSM family that can't quite catch on to subliminable posts like that.

 

Faggot, and now I have the proof...

NOOOOOOOOO!

[Jingus 0]

I just don't think that "global warming" is anything that we really have to worry that much about. This study said that the Worst Case Scenario would be an overall global temperature increase of ten degrees Farenheit over the next hundred years.

 

Ten fucking degrees is the worst that could possibly happen. That's much, much less of a temperature difference than, say, the last ice age brought on. I think it's just a cyclical thing. After all, with something as complex as an entire planet's weather systems, you wouldn't really expect it to stay rock-steady at the same numbers forever.

[EricMM 0]

Jingus, believe me, a ten degree shift would change many things.

 

Temperature dictates things like the weather, and both temperature and climate dictate things like agriculture. Plus the warmer the earth gets, the more the ocean's level will rise.

 

And finally, it's not a good thing to be doing. It's just wrong to be dealing our children and grandchildren these kinds of problems. Like the report said, even if we stopped all carbon emissions TODAY, the temperature would still raise a degree F, let alone if we continue the way we are today, let alone if we let things increase the way they will when everyone in CHINA buys cars.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

Not to cast aspersions at this particular story, but I would just like to point out that newspapers report bad science as indisputable fact ALL THE TIME.

This particular research was published in Science, which along with Nature is consdered the most reputable scientific publication. So disregarding any conclusions that one wants to draw from this, the actual research itself is probably very scientifically sound.

[CanadianChris 0]

Not to cast aspersions at this particular story, but I would just like to point out that newspapers report bad science as indisputable fact ALL THE TIME.

This particular research was published in Science, which along with Nature is consdered the most reputable scientific publication. So disregarding any conclusions that one wants to draw from this, the actual research itself is probably very scientifically sound.

I have no doubt that the research shows the earth is getting warmer, and I'll accept that the methodology is sound. The problem is not with the research itself, but with the story -- a classic case of post hoc ergo propter hoc by everyone quoted.

 

I'll be interested in reading the Science article when it's released.

[LessonInMachismo 0]

I bet you would know...

Well, that *is* what I was implying, you sly dog, you.

Even something THAT small?

 

Wait, how do I know it's small?

[Jingus 0]

Jingus, believe me, a ten degree shift would change many things.

 

Temperature dictates things like the weather, and both temperature and climate dictate things like agriculture. Plus the warmer the earth gets, the more the ocean's level will rise.

 

And finally, it's not a good thing to be doing. It's just wrong to be dealing our children and grandchildren these kinds of problems. Like the report said, even if we stopped all carbon emissions TODAY, the temperature would still raise a degree F, let alone if we continue the way we are today, let alone if we let things increase the way they will when everyone in CHINA buys cars.

All well and good. But:

 

1. What the hell are we supposed to do to stop it?

 

and

 

2. What changes would it make anyway that we couldn't cope with?

 

And don't just respond with stuff about saving the earth or recycling or hybrid cars or whatever. Non-combustion automobiles have been around for a long time now, but have still yet to catch on with the public. That's simply because the manufacturers still haven't found any other means of propulsion that works as well and as cheaply as gasoline. And do remember that no matter what, there will always be greedy or incompetent businesses and nations that will continue to pollute the environment for their own short-term gains. We really can't stop that. It's human to be fucking stupid and destructive. We can curb it back as well as possible, but eliminating it entirely is a pipe dream which will never happen because of simple psychology.

 

So what's your solution? And is the problem really serious enough to need solving? Remember, they said WORST CASE SCENERIO was ten degrees. That means the real number is way below that.

[Guest MikeSC]

The FACT of the matter is:

 

1) We have NO idea if this is cyclical.

2) We have NO idea that WE are causing it, if "it" is even a problem.

3) We have NO idea of what potential problems might occur

4) We have NO idea how bad it might be --- and passing legislation based on worst-case scenarios is insane.

-=Mikr

[EricMM 0]

Mike, you have no idea, or claim to.

 

I, and many other have some idea. Again, if there's calculated to be too much energy being retained, it's not a weather pattern causing the warmth. That's something else. This is pure energy. That excuse doesn't wash anymore. That's the whole point of this.

 

Jingus,

 

1) Obviously, decrease and eventually (with a capital EVENTUALLY) eliminate net carbon dioxide gain in our atmosphere. This'll probably not be in our lifetime, but who knows what we can do thirty years from now? Right now the clearest, easiest choice is conservation. We just DO use more energy than we need to to accomplish what we currently have. I'm not just talking about cars although that is a part. Worldwide deforestation needs to be curbed, because plants absorb CO2. I'm trying to think here and I'm tired. Every bit of energy saved everyday is more oil or "clean" coal that doesn't have to be burned somewhere. More efficent lightbulbs, more efficent seals on windows, any energy wasted as heat is generally able to be done better. There's scads and scads more, I dunno, find some green website, they'll have info on energy saving.

 

2) Like I said previously. Heat influences the amount of rainfall in an area. In effect, a warming planet would move the weather around. Where I live, it would lead to more precipitation. More snowfall, more rain. In other areas it could lead to less. Some areas would profit agriculturally, some areas would hurt. The problem is, our agriculture is pretty fucking established. It does no one any good if DC is better for crops, but if the farmer in the midwest has generally less rainfall, he'll have to import more water or grow less crops. That's not deadly, it's just bad. We'd be best off keeping our weather the way we've gotten used to it over these last centuries. Yes, as Mike stated, some things are cyclical, such as periods of warming and cooling. But there's no reason to force things.

 

As for greedy nations/people? what can we do? well first and foremost, be better than them. We as Americans can effect change here at least. For other nations, well, Kyoto was an attempt to get the world in on this thing. Unfortunately it was GROSSLY imperfect. We didn't sign anyways, and it didn't even cover China, who would most likely never voluntarily sign. But we can show them techs that will be more efficent, and who knows? Maybe we can influence world energy prices so that the cost of pollution would make energy too expensive to waste.

[Guest MikeSC]

Mike, you have no idea, or claim to.

 

I, and many other have some idea. Again, if there's calculated to be too much energy being retained, it's not a weather pattern causing the warmth. That's something else. This is pure energy. That excuse doesn't wash anymore. That's the whole point of this.

No, you don't. You are little more than somebody who believes in creationism. You seek for ANY scientific basis to explain away your illogical beliefs. You don't have shit to fall back on and are upset because you're not used to having people who DON'T blindly accept your theory of fact as reality.

 

I expect PROOF and you don't provide a damned shred of it.

 

I can freely and happily admit that my faith in Christ is just that --- FAITH.

 

One day you'll eventually recognize that your faith in environmentalism is just that --- faith. Your attempts to make it sound scientific are about as sad as the whole "Intelligent Design" crowd.

-=Mike

[EricMM 0]

Mike do you even believe that Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas?

[Guest MikeSC]

I don't buy into the entire FUCKING CONCEPT of "The Greenhouse Effect"

-=Mike

[Placebo Effect 0]

How could Mike suck on global warming? What exactly would you put in your mouth?...

 

A little cube of ice from the polar ice caps.

 

Ohhh noes.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I bet you would know...

Well, that *is* what I was implying, you sly dog, you.

Even something THAT small?

 

Wait, how do I know it's small?

It's only funny when kkk does it.

[EricMM 0]

So what the hell do you think keeps Earth's heat from radiating into space?

 

Christ's love!?

[Guest MikeSC]

So what the hell do you think keeps Earth's heat from radiating into space?

 

Christ's love!?

I'm disputing that it's on the verge of superheating the Earth, ending all life as we know it.

 

But if clutching at straws is all you can do in a vain attempt to defend the modern-day equivalent of phrenology, so be it.

-=Mike

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

In our second installment "Anti-Global Warming Groups Xposed~!", bigolsmitty goes undercover at The Science & Environmental Policy Project--an organization skeptical about ozone depletion and global warming.

 

The Leader

 

"... S. Fred Singer, acknowledged during a 1994 appearance on the television program Nightline that he had received funding from Exxon, Shell, Unocal and ARCO. He did not deny receiving funding on a number of occasions from the Rev. Sun Myung Moon."

 

Source: sourcewatch

 

On the SEPP's global warming skeptic Leipzig declaration of 1995:

 

"The declarations have been widely cited by conservative voices in the "sound science" movement. It has been cited by Fred Singer in editorial columns appearing in hundreds of conservative websites and major publications, including The Wall Street Journal, Miami Herald, Detroit News, Chicago Tribune, Cleveland Plain Dealer, Memphis Commercial-Appeal, Seattle Times, and Orange County Register. Jeff Jacoby, a columnist with the Boston Globe, describes the signers of the Leipzig Declaration as "climate scientists" that "include prominent scholars." The Heritage Foundation calls them "noted scientists," as do conservative think tanks such as Citizens for a Sound Economy, the Heartland Institute, and Australia's Institute for Public Affairs. Both the Leipzig Declaration and Frederick Seitz's Oregon Petition have been quoted as authoritative sources during deliberations in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives."

 

However...

 

"According to the SEPP website, there were 79 signatures to the 1995 declaration, including Frederick Seitz: the current SEPP chair. The signature list was last updated on July 16, 1996. Of these 79, 33 failed to respond when the SEPP asked them to sign the 1997 declaration. The SEPP calls the signatories "nearly 100 climate experts".

 

The signatures to the 1995 declaration were disputed by David Olinger of the St. Petersburg Times. In an article on July 29, 1996, he revealed that many signers, including Chauncey Starr, Robert Balling, and Patrick Michaels, have received funding from the oil industry, while others had no scientific training or could not be identified.

 

The 1995 declarations begins: "As scientists, we are intensely interested in the possibility that human activities may affect the global climate". However, those identified as scientists and climate experts include at least ten weather presenters, including Dick Groeber of Dick's Weather Service in Springfield, Ohio. Groeber, who had not completed a university degree, labelled himself a scientist by virtue of his thirty to forty years of self-study.

 

In any case, it is difficult to accurately evaluate the list of signatures of the 1995 declaration, as the SEPP website provides no additional details about them except for their university, if they are professors."

 

Source: answers.com (emphasis mine)

 

So conservative think tanks and congressmen are basing their policy toward climate change on the opinions of weathermen, the oil industry (of course), and Sun Myung Moon. Beautiful.

[Guest MikeSC]

Well, if it makes you feel any better, if you actually HAD a defense, you'd have tried MAKING one, rather than simply attacking critics who bring up points you cannot refute.

-=Mike

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Well, if it makes you feel any better, if you actually HAD a defense, you'd have tried MAKING one, rather than simply attacking critics who bring up points you cannot refute.

      -=Mike

I'm not a scientist, so I can't really argue the case for global warming very well.

 

However, I can point out that the people presenting the case for global warming (NASA, the EPA, the NOAA, the MIT Joint Program on the Science & Policy of Global Change, et al) tend to be more credible than those presenting the case against it (weathermen, a tobacco lobbyist, the oil industry, you, Sun Myung Moon, et al).

 

And I'm sure their critiques could be refuted by someone who actually, unlike me, has a background in science. Like NASA, for example.

[LessonInMachismo 0]

And I'm sure their critiques could be refuted by someone who actually, unlike me, has a background in science. Like NASA, for example.

Yeah, NASA...the guys who were beat by a little private outfit without government backing...

[NoCalMike 0]

One day you'll eventually recognize that your faith in environmentalism is just that --- faith. Your attempts to make it sound scientific are about as sad as the whole "Intelligent Design" crowd.

-=Mike

Why claim "enviornmentalism is a cult" when it seems most of your anger and skepticism revolves around global warming?

 

What about smaller but also important issues?Certainly things like local pollution making the air we breathe bad quality, mass dumping of harmful toxins into the ground where it runs off into drinking water among other issues alram you or at least make you think it can't be good for the enviornment, no? I mean, I suppose there is enough evidence on both sides of the GLOBAL WARMING ISSUE to either believe it or not believe it, and still have a foot to stand on, but I get kind of confused when you talk about enviornmentalism as a whole issue when all you are really arguing about is Global Warming.

[Guest MikeSC]

One day you'll eventually recognize that your faith in environmentalism is just that --- faith. Your attempts to make it sound scientific are about as sad as the whole "Intelligent Design" crowd.

-=Mike

Why claim "enviornmentalism is a cult" when it seems most of your anger and skepticism revolves around global warming?

 

What about smaller but also important issues?Certainly things like local pollution making the air we breathe bad quality, mass dumping of harmful toxins into the ground where it runs off into drinking water among other issues alram you or at least make you think it can't be good for the enviornment, no? I mean, I suppose there is enough evidence on both sides of the GLOBAL WARMING ISSUE to either believe it or not believe it, and still have a foot to stand on, but I get kind of confused when you talk about enviornmentalism as a whole issue when all you are really arguing about is Global Warming.

Global warming is simply the most publicly-known aspect of the cult.

-=Mike

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Remember the days when acid rain was the big scare. Yeah I find it hard to take these environmental studies seriously because they constantly make these doom and gloom predicitions that never happen.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

As best as I understand it.

 

1) We should try not to pollute.

2) Our impact on the Earth's ecosystem is still marginal compared to large-scale natural disasters.

3) We have no clue about historical trends because we just couldn't measure it.

4) We can extrapolate, and we know from ice/fossil records that warming/cooling is cyclical. We don't know which part of the cycle we're in.

 

Doomsayers, whether they be religious, environmental, or somewhere else, tend to fall prey to the Malthusian Vice, which has been echoed here before. The Mathusian Vice was named after Thomas Malthus, an otherwise bright man. He predicted mass starvation because food production grew by a unit basis while population grew exponentially. His work was later used by Marx as a basis for Socialist Thought.

 

Food

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,

People

1,2,4,8,16,32,64

 

However, Malthus forgot that behavior in the past is not indicative wholly in the future. This is the failure of holding ceteris paribus as valid. Technology changes, and technology allowed for food production to progress faster than population growth since Malthu's book (and still today).

 

Therefore, to state that given current trends we're f*cked is in fact falling prey to the Malthusian vice. By acknowledging the data we're seeing now, that will incentive change later. Hence, the environmentalist's warnings (while invalid in the long-run) are valid in the short-medium run as they bring attention and resources to problems before they become problems.

 

So, to everyone, please don't commit a malthusian vice. Thanks.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

bigolsmitty's quest in search of a credible anti-global warming group continues in the third installment of "Anti-Global Warming Groups Xposed~!"

 

The George C. Marshall Institue

 

The George C. Marshall Institute (GMI) is a 501©(3) non-profit organization founded in 1984. The Institute's mission is to "encourage the use of sound science in making public policy about important issues for which science and technology are major considerations." The "program emphasizes issues in national security and the environment."

 

source: GCM Inst.

 

Funding

 

The Institute received $5,577,803 in 77 separate grants from only five foundations between 1985 and 2001:

 

The Earhart Foundation*

 

John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.*

 

Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation*

 

Scaife Foundations (Sarah Mellon Scaife, Carthage)*

 

*denotes right-wing think tank funder

 

 

During 2002, ExxonMobil donated $90,000 to the Institute, $80,000 of which was for the "Global Climate Change Program". (http://www2.exxonmobil.com/files/corporate/public_policy1.pdf)

 

SEPP

Several people of GMI are also involved in the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP):

 

Bruce N. Ames, Board of Science Advisors

Charles Gelman, Board of Directors

William A. Nierenberg, Board of Science Advisors

Frederick Seitz, Chairman

Chauncey Starr, Board of Science Advisors

 

source: sourcewatch

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Part IV: ExxonMobil

 

In a magnanimous move, ExxonMobil has decided to provide funding to those interested in researching climate change.

 

ExxonMobil Internal Memo: Global Climate Science Communications Action Plan

 

http://www.environmentaldefense.org/docume...ncePlanMemo.pdf

 

Funding

 

The George C. Marshall Institute received $185,000 from ExxonMobil for "Climate Change Public Information and Policy Research" in 2002-2003.

 

The Tech Central Station Science Foundation received $95,000 from ExxonMobil for "Climate Change Support" in 2003.

 

The American Enterprise Institute has received $485,000 from ExxonMobil since 2002.

 

The Competitive Enterprise Institute has received $870,000 from ExxonMobil since 2002.

 

In 2003-2003, the Independent Institute received $20,000 from ExxonMobil Foundation.

 

The Competitive Enterprise Institute has received $870,000 from ExxonMobil since 2002.

 

Techcentralstation.com received $95,000 from ExxonMobil Foundation in 2003.

 

The Annapolis Center received $27,500 from ExxonMobil Corporate Giving in 2003.

 

The Cato Institute received $25,000 from ExxonMobil Foundation in 2003.

 

The Fraser Institute received $60,000 from ExxonMobil in 2003.

 

The Cato Institute received $55,000 from ExxonMobil in 2002-2003.

 

The Cato Institute got $25,000 from the ExxonMobil Foundation in 2003.

 

The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition got $30,000 from the ExxonMobil Foundation since 2000.

 

Consumer Alert (which runs the Cooler Heads Coalition) received $25,000 from ExxonMobil in 2002-2003.

 

The International Policy Network received $50,000 from ExxonMobil in 2003 for "North America Climate Change Outreach."

 

The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change received $40,000 from ExxonMobil in 2003.

 

In 2003, the Independent Institute received $10,000 from ExxonMobil Foundation.

 

In 2003, the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow received $72,000 from ExxonMobil Foundation, of which $25,000 were labeled for "climate change issues."

 

In 2003, the Heartland Institute received $85,000 from the ExxonMobil Foundation, and $7,500 from the ExxonMobil Corporation.

 

The National Center for Policy Analysis received $105,000 from ExxonMobil in 2002-2003.

 

The Frontiers of Freedom organizations received $282,000 from ExxonMobil in 2002-2003.

 

The American Council on Science and Health received $35,000 from ExxonMobil in 2002-2003.

 

The American Council for Capital Formation received $444,523 from ExxonMobil in 2002-2003.

 

Sources:

 

http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/files/...lic_policy1.pdf

 

and

 

http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/files/...ving_report.pdf.