The Most Extra New Super Global Warming Thread

[GhostintheShell]

Originally Posted by GlobalWarmin

I'm using similar language that so-called global warming skeptics here use repeatedly to describe people like myself on purpose.

Feel free to disagree with my "opinions" about global warming, because they aren't really my opinions: They're the findings of scientist and journalists. I don't have any real opinions about the topic, because I'm not a climate scientist doing research right now.

Respect should be the minimum requirement. I was given negative rep. for the 5th time by Lucky, because I shared an article from the AP about the weather in 2007 I think critical thinking and accountability should be the minimum requirements, something that is sorely lacking from those who are so sure they know more about the climate than those who study it for a living.

You are not hearing the message because you aren't interested in even considering it. Slow down a little, you seem to think that my post was still about GW.

You don't have such poor rep because 1 person is picking on you, you have such poor rep because of the manner in which you are conducting yourself.

It isn't about your message. I and many others have gone through the previous two GW threads both were bigger than this one, and none of us have as many neg reputation points as you combined.

[ScratchMonkey]

Originally Posted by Tonk

why should accountability be a minimum requirement when we are only sharing our opinions about the topic of the thread? everyone is only throwing their 2cents into the conversation

Sharing an opinion without some justification for that opinion is only useful to those who make decisions as a herd. Hopefully no one here is a herd beast.

Even when I disagree with someone here (anywhere within TG), I want to understand how they came to their position. It may be that he has data I don't that will change my position.

Opinions likely vary not because someone is "wrong" but because we're all blind men groping different parts of an elephant, and they don't all feel the same. I want to know about your part of the elephant.

[AMosely]

Originally Posted by GlobalWarmin

Respect should be the minimum requirement. I was given negative rep. for the 5th time by Lucky, because I shared an article from the AP about the weather in 2007

You're right, it should be. Typically one receives negative rep for not displaying it. Lucky's a pretty (sorry Lucky, I mean really!) reputable guy around here, so I've got to think that he tossed you some negativity not for the article but for the lack of respsect with which it as delivered. He probably said so in another post, and the slap-fest began.

Just try to remember that disagreement is what drives this forum, so be prepared for that.

[leejo]

I disagree! Disagreement is NOT what drives this forum. Massive egos drive this forum.

[GlobalWarmin]

Originally Posted by ScratchMonkey

Sharing an opinion without some justification for that opinion is only useful to those who make decisions as a herd. Hopefully no one here is a herd beast.

Even when I disagree with someone here (anywhere within TG), I want to understand how they came to their position. It may be that he has data I don't that will change my position.

This is exactly the problem! Everyone who I asked about their quite extreme opinions on global warming science, offered only ridiculously inappropriate, bias, and cherry picked websites--which I already knew would be the case anyways. The more I've tried to get people to explain what they mean and back it up with proof, the more defensive they seem to get.

The point of view being expressed by many here is right out of the neo-con play book; It's like Rush Limbaugh has dozens of accounts here. Furthermore, the only sources deemed credible by these same people are openly 'anti-liberal', conservative, or directly GOP and petroleum industry sponsored websites. What's really offensive to me about this isn't that people are confused about global warming (because they are supposed to be) or that they have different political views than me, it's that they don't know the difference between biased and unbiased sources--especially on this issue.

[GhostintheShell]

What makes you think that the oil industry is opposed to the theory of global warming? I hear this all the time in posts but do you really think it is that simple? Good vs. evil and all that?

Have you ever considered the idea that oil companies make a lot of money off of driving our fears? Just about every news headline drives the price of oil up directly or indirectly...global warming "news" impacts the price of oil as much as any other brand of terrorism, and thats exactly what "GW" has become, another form of terrorism...

[GlobalWarmin]

Originally Posted by GhostintheShell

What makes you think that the oil industry is opposed to the theory of global warming? I hear this all the time in posts but do you really think it is that simple? Good vs. evil and all that?

Have you ever considered the idea that oil companies make a lot of money off of driving our fears? Just about every news headline drives the price of oil up directly or indirectly...global warming "news" impacts the price of oil as much as any other brand of terrorism, and thats exactly what "GW" has become, another form of terrorism...

I know for a fact that the oil industry is opposed to global warming science--and that's not an opinion. And, no, it has nothing to do with good vs evil (why would it?). The oil industy's influence on this issue is well documented and well known. For starters (just of the top of my head), the industry is responsible for funding several conservative think thanks and websites, paying scientists to do research to counter the IPCC ($10,000 bonus after the 2007 assessment), and the American Association of Petroleum Geologists was the last major scientific body opposed to IPCC findings. The list goes on and on, believe me.

Have I ever considered that oil companies drive fake headlines about global warming to increase the price of gas? No, because they don't. Please, show me one piece of credible evidence to support such a claim. *Sigh* This is what drives me crazy here: speculation. There is so much guessing going on around here that facts are assumed to be opinions. The headlines that make it into the national news about global warming don't just appear from nowhere, they come mostly from the findings detailed in peer-reviewed science journals. I can't recall ever reading an article about a study done that was funded by the oil industry. I suppose, that if one doesn't follow science news at all, that they could wonder about the sources for information that they occasionally come across in the mainstream, but, don't think for a second that so-called global warming "news" is being generated by the oil industry to raise prices. That is a very naive assumption. Science, research, and politicians make global warming news; however, the political and economic parts are much more likely to be seen in the mainstream press for obvious reasons.

Calling global warming a scare tactic is not critical thinking, it's the herd mentality of the right wing. This is complete nonsense, and, again, I challenge anyone to provide appropriate evidence that this opinion is written about widely by anyone that isn't connected to conservative organizations. Scientist aren't politicians! Scientists don't try to scare people for political purposes, or tell them how to live their lives. However, politicians scare the herd into believing that there is some boogie man behind the scant news they rarely see about global warming, so that they won't believe it--and it's working. Of course, I don't really expect anyone on this forum to accept that, but, this isn't my opinion either: It's another heavily written about fact. Conservatives have been opposed to global warming as part of their political platform since the 1980s. I'm not going into to it here, but do a little research about the Bush administration's science policies, and you'll get a glimpse of what is really happening right now.

[leejo]

Originally Posted by GlobalWarmin

Calling global warming a scare tactic is not critical thinking, it's the herd mentality of the right wing. This is complete nonsense.

Is this your idea of respectful conversation? Where do we go from here? Oh yes.

<click>

[Guardianx11x]

Hey guys, I'm coming in a bit late in the argument. I read some of the posts at the start, some of the posts at the end--skipped the middle cause from what I can tell it was irrelevent. I have an above average scientific background, I've even been involved in designing more engergy efficient ways to do common things, as well as large scale power generation. I know many of the new technologies, and most importantly, I know their limitations.

Taking a step back, I dont think anyone can claim that we don't impact the enviornment. I'm not saying we do or don't contibute to global warming, I'm simply stating not even the dumbest of the dumb would argue that we do atleast affect our local enviornment. To that end me must also realize we arent playing a zero sum game with resources. Knowing this there is only plausable path to take is one of greater efficiency and renewable power. It is called technological progress, it is not a bad thing. Will anyone here argue that driving a more gas efficient car or electric is a bad thing? (If you talk about hydrogen you are poorly informed, it doesn't/can't work). Or will you say "Guardian, but we are still using coal to generate electricity and...blah blah blah...it pollutes". The first step is obviously shifting the consumer mindset. Technologies will follow, don't you worry about that. I'm a strong believer that for awhile...coal is the answer for us, yes that is right. It is called Coal Gasification, look it up. There are things out there that work, not perfectly, but far better than what we are using now. The problem is that the correct incentives haven't been given to shift to said technologies. Honestly, GW doesn't scare me. What scares me is people who can even ignore the problem on a local level and no nothing to change it. These people need to understand they arent losing what they have...they are upgrading.

[ScratchMonkey]

the industry is responsible for funding several conservative think thanks and websites, paying scientists to do research to counter the IPCC ($10,000 bonus after the 2007 assessment)

Cite, please, where what the scientists are getting paid for is shown. I can't imagine such a contract actually seeing the light of day.

and the American Association of Petroleum Geologists was the last major scientific body opposed to IPCC findings.

So? Galileo made an unpopular finding, too. The fact that your position doesn't go along with established authorities doesn't make it wrong. (BTW, Galileo got locked up not because of his findings, but because of his rude way of presenting them.)

[GlobalWarmin]

Originally Posted by leejo

Is this your idea of respectful conversation? Where do we go from here? Oh yes.

<click>

Where do you go from here? I know; keep reading: "I challenge anyone to provide appropriate evidence that this opinion is written about widely by anyone that isn't connected to conservative organizations.

[GlobalWarmin]

Originally Posted by ScratchMonkey

Cite, please, where what the scientists are getting paid for is shown. I can't imagine such a contract actually seeing the light of day.

Took less than one minute to find:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen....climatechange

[USN_Squid]

Originally Posted by GlobalWarmin

Took less than one minute to find:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen....climatechange

This doesn't sound terribly nefarious to me:

The letters were sent by Kenneth Green, a visiting scholar at AEI, who confirmed that the organisation had approached scientists, economists and policy analysts to write articles for an independent review that would highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC report.

"Right now, the whole debate is polarised," he said. "One group says that anyone with any doubts whatsoever are deniers and the other group is saying that anyone who wants to take action is alarmist. We don't think that approach has a lot of utility for intelligent policy."


edit:
If you can source The Guardian as reliable than certainly the WSJ is as well:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110009649
"What AEI did was send a letter to several leading climate scientists asking them to participate in a symposium that would present a "range of policy prescriptions that should be considered for climate change of uncertain dimension." Some of the scholars asked to participate, including Steve Schroeder of Texas A& M, are climatologists who believe that global warming is a major problem.

AEI President Chris DeMuth says, "What the Guardian essentially characterizes as a bribe is the conventional practice of AEI -- and Brookings, Harvard and the University of Manchester -- to pay individuals" for commissioned work. He says that Exxon has contributed less than 1% of AEI's budget over the last decade.

By the way, commissioning such research is also standard practice at NASA and other government agencies and at liberal groups such as the Pew Charitable Trusts, which have among them spent billions of dollars attempting to link fossil fuels to global warming."

[GhostintheShell]

I don't think I recall anyone here stating that they thought we were "playing a zero sum game" with the environment, or that we thought we had no affect on our environment. Maybe I should demand you "show me one piece of credible evidence to support such a claim"....it seems to be a common thread in your postings.


http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/index.html

This was linked in one of the earlier threads but you probably skimmed it or dismissed it as "irrelevant". I wonder how much other info you gloss over that disagrees with your personal belief system?

Please actually read this instead of doing all kinds of "research to prove that it is oil industry funded" or "right wing" or "Rush Limbaugh" or "easy to discredit" without actually reading something and trying to accept that there are different and valid sides to every argument.

[Guardianx11x]

Originally Posted by GhostintheShell

I don't think I recall anyone here stating that they thought we were "playing a zero sum game" with the environment, or that we thought we had no affect on our environment. Maybe I should demand you "show me one piece of credible evidence to support such a claim"....it seems to be a common thread in your postings.

I can only assume you are confused. This is the first post I made in this thread so ridiculous for you to claim that "show me one piece of credible evidence to support such a claim" is a common thread (sic) in my posts.

Originally Posted by GhostintheShell

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/index.html

This was linked in one of the earlier threads but you probably skimmed it or dismissed it as "irrelevant". I wonder how much other info you gloss over that disagrees with your personal belief system?

I intentionally made no claim for or against global warming in my post. You must have glossed over that I guess Also, if you really must know, I actually try and seek information that disagrees with my personal beliefs...helps the learning process.

Originally Posted by GhostintheShell

Please actually read this instead of doing all kinds of "research to prove that it is oil industry funded" or "right wing" or "Rush Limbaugh" or "easy to discredit" without actually reading something and trying to accept that there are different and valid sides to every argument.

I said nothing about Rush, the oil industry, or descrediting anything. Obviously there are different valid sides to any argument. I didn't say anything to the contrary in my post.

I think you should probably go back and read what I wrote. Understand that I in no way was even talking about global warming. I'm defending the idea that reguardless of GW...maybe we should still make the effort to be more "green".