I just saw John Stossel's segment of 20/20 on the global warming debate.
Yes – I said DEBATE.
Not only is there no consensus, those who believe the Earth is warming have no particular standing – of even facts on their side. Gore's movie lecture is an unmitigated fraud, and the IPCC is, as one reputable (because he doesn't support the warming theory) scientist calls it the "inter-governmental panel on climate change." In other wards, not only are they bought and paid for by government entities, but the scientists who oppose the "theory" are not paid by anybody.
In addition, the good guys have been threated – even physically, and one scientist had to sue to get his name removed from the report that bore his name – which he hadn't consented to. The report, that is.
So as far as I'm concerned, the debate IS over. You can believe what you want, just don't bring your nonsense here without some hard evidence, because your opinion is not only not as good as mine, it's baseless.
And if someone does think he has some convincing evidence, in order to present it, I first want to hear what you think will be the benefits of global warming. Fair enough?
Stossel says, "Gimme a break!"
I say, "Put your warming theories where the sun don't shine."
The Naked Conservative 
Is this on YouTube somewhere? Is it new or old?
If you live on the West Coast, it's on ABC in about ten minutes
So do you think the benefits of a warmer planet will be…??
First, I've said what I think the benefits will be any number of times, but I'm not the one on trial, it's warmists who have to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
So I'll be happy to answer my question again when you have.
There are global warming skeptics and fringe scientists, but the world consensus on climate is contained in the Climate Change 2007 report by the 2500+ scientists, researchers, etc., worldwide who have put the report together, using articles, all previously peer-reviewed by other scientists and published in scientific journals.
The IPCC process could not be more open. It is set out on their website. The reports are available online, even though they are also being published by Cambridge University.
The only pressure being put on scientists is not from IPCC but from:
(1) the U.S. government trying to stifle climate change scientists and science (particularly in the past) to pretend it didn't exist because their election coffers are well funded by big polluters such as oil, car, coal, etc.; and
(2) the worst polluting or non-Kyoto signing governments and lobbyists who provided comments on the report to try to downplay the impact of the report; and
(3) the ultra-right wing conservative Republican and ultra-right wing Christian media machine(s) which fund think tanks and institutes and scientists willing to sell themselves to provide anti-climate change comments.
If anything, the report would have been much more strongly worded and much more alarming without government/lobbyist feedback considered by the IPCC before finalizing the reports.
There is a website called PR Watch, which also contains Sourcewatch, which lists the names of many of these anti-climate change organizations and scientists funded by the polluting companies who do not want climate change and environmental legislation.
http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/prwatch.html
They also have a handful of books which talk about the influence of the ultra-right wing media machine. I've only read one so far:
Banana Republicans: How the Right-Wing is Turning American Into a One-Party State by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber
http://www.prwatch.org/books/bananas.html
I tried to start writing out all of the names of the organizations and spokespersons or scientists-for-hire who peddle this junk science, but the book is filled with hundreds of them and I gave up before I returned the book to the library.
I find the tactics of the anti-climate change groups and individuals less than ethical – the personal attacks on Gore, arguments that leave out half the truth or are anti-scientific and anti-intellectual, that credit some one fringe or junk science scientist with more credit than the entire Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change (sponsored by the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Meteorological Organization) or spout some conspiracy theory about the more lone scientist against the big bad global science community.
http://www.ipcc.ch/
The first part of the IPCC Climate Change 2007 report is almost 1,000 pages long. http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
Every scientist and researcher involved in the first section of the report is listed, along with the University or organization where they work.
The reports, summaries, charts, presentations and much more information is fully viewable by anyone who wants to see it on the IPCC website. Have a look yourself. To discount a peer-reviewed report of peer-reviewed, published scientific articles involving 2500+ people is anti-science, anti-intellectual and irresponsible.
I try not to spend a lot of time adding comments to non-climate change believer's comments because the IPCC report this years says climate change in "unequivocal" and since the industrial age in the mid-1850s, largely due to "anthropogenic" (man-made) causes. Anyone who still believes otherwise is either way too right-wing and ultra-conservative, ultra-Christian and right-wing, anti-science, anti-intellectual, playing devil's advocate, liberal-baiting, or on the less harsh side, not curious enough to look into the topic themselves.
Since even the conservatives in the U.S., Canada and perhaps elsewhere have conceded this year that there is such a thing as climate change, the current conservative rant is that doing anything about it will cost too much money and so the timeframes for Kyoto agreement are unreasonable and longer timeframes are required. So anyone who still rants about there being no such thing as climate change hasn't even kept up with the anti-climate change's current policy position on how to deal with requests for making changes to deal with climate change.
The case has been made my friend.
I don't know how to say this any nicer – you're morons. The report is a fraud, the IPCC is a fraud, and while most morons usually know something, you don't appear to be among their number.
Now don't attempt to broach this subject with me again until you have some real evidence.
And I specifically said that I wanted to hear what you think is the upside of global warming before you said anything.. So on top of everything else, you can't even follow simple directions, and you want to be taken seriously?
Now assuming that's all you've got, and seeing that you're both ill-equiped to deal with any other questions I'd put to you, I'll bid you adieu.
Well, I would think when you throw out terms like "fraud" — the proof is on you to "prove that beyond a reasonable doubt."
Uh… no it isn't, and you should be prosecuted for offering legal advice without a license.
You really are thick, aren't you? Once again you've written something that isn't as stupid in print as is the fact that you thought it made perfect sense in the first place.
You know, I addressed that idiotic comment you made back when about the 80% chance of warming as nicely as I could. And when you showed an utter lack of ability to reason the other day with your preposterous and irrelevant WMD comment, I tried to let you save face by ascribing it to a pretend liberal. I even felt badly because I didn't want to hurt your feelings, but short of the two-by-four upside the head, I felt you desperately needed to know how lacking you were in drawing comparisons.
But now I see I need to be very direct, and it's for your own good – the simple fact is, you just aren't too bright. I know you won't believe me. Heck, you probably won't even understand what that means.
I can see that this warming thing is important to you in the same way losing in Iraq is important to the Dems. You're fully invested. I also know from experience and having been right so incredibly often that idiots never apologize for their mistakes. That's why it's so important for you that they get on with the "cure" – so you'll never face the possibility of having to account for how you could have been so wrong.
And it's why you (and others) always ignore inconvenient facts and possibilities and even reality. In fact, whatever evidence you might have to support your belief is scarcely better than what there is to support your favorite Biblical event. I saw you disparaging Stossel's report. But you didn't see it, did you? No matter, I suspect that even if you did, you wouldn't.
Now I don't mean to be rude, but then I didn't ask you for your opinion either. Nor would I ever. But frankly, I've said many times that I don't suffer fools well, and now you've forced me to admit that when I say that, you're one of the people I'm referring to.
Still, I am willing to give you one last chance to demonstrate that you possess at least some rudimentary intelligence, and I say that more as a challenge because I must admit it will be fascinating to see what your conception of that might be.
Dear TedWest and Dox^2:
Climate change skeptics in blogs: anger, name-calling, and personal attacks replacing civil discourse = waste of time for those concerned with climate change and other environmental issues.
The debate about whether there is climate change or not has been dead for decades, except in the media. It was certainly "unequivocally" over when the IPCC report sections started to be released this year.
What needs to be discussed instead?
Individual, corporate, and government sustainability; corporate responsibility; ethics in business; alternative energy sources; organic and local foods; what individuals, schools, corporations, governments can do to to reduce their carbon footprints; what individual and institutional investors can do to make businesses they invest in more socially responsible; how to deal with increasing numbers of climate change refugees; adaptation strategies to climate change in the short term; mitigation of climate change in the short and long term; the funding; renewable energy sources; nuclear?; biofuels as fuel or should corn, etc., be left as food; hybrid and electric cars; vegetarianism; "green" clothing, cosmetics, personal care products; conservation; feedback mechanisms; Arctic sea ice and glaciers and warming = canary in the mine; effects of climate change on wildlife and their habitats; effects of climate change on ocean; influence of "dirty" energy on U.S. politicians both Republican and Conservative; election and election funding reform in the U.S…..
There are many innovative individuals, businesses and governments (barring the biggest polluting companies, unfortunately including U.S. President Bush and Prime Minister Stephen Harper) coming out with new and greener ways to do things: the first hybrid locomotive developed by GE in the U.S.; a Canadian company that manufactures insulation used in Habitat for Humanity houses from old jeans; Purolator's electric delivery van, to name just a few.
Exciting times to be able to participate in doing our part to save the earth for its human and animal inhabitants.
Inukshuk
Canada
Canada?
I wish you'd said that at the start, it would have saved us both some effort.
Yes, these are exciting times indeed as we watch the freedoms and quality of life for people across the planet being threatened by power mad fools with mere hype and hysteria to support their claims.
In fact, the idiots who have blessed me with their presence here all have one thing in common – blind faith in a cause for which there is evidence, and that shows itself every time better people than you, and by that I mean, non-Canadians, insist on putting in their two cents (two Canadian) in defense of a group or report, and never once posting any evidence.
I mean, there must be something, some set of facts that led you to conclude that warming is real, ongoing, and a threat to our very existence? And I would love to hear them instead of the idiocy and non-sequiturs I always get, followed by the inevitable backtracking when you're pressed to defend the various lunacies you and others spout.
I know you're not used to having to do that, especially in Canada, but you made the mistake of coming here where actual thinking and logic is required…
And I simply reject the IPCC and it's report and so many other generalizations, so why don't you tell me in your own words, and without the Canadian accent, if you get my drift…?
The reality of the situation is that no matter what proof I throw your way — you will just say it isn't proof at all. So I don't know what would convince you. So wouldn't it really just be a waste of time?I will continue to post on the subject and not because I am invested in it. Just because I am starting to understand the science because I am reading up on it.
Holy God, there must be something more wrong with you than the obvious. You haven't actually posted anything at all, you can't follow instructions, nothing seems to get through, and if you were to post what you consider proof and I do say it's no proof at all, not only would it be no proof, but I would tell you why – so you could be enlightened two ways.
Instead, I get round after round of nonsense from you, and while you're free to post whatever you'd like, no matter how wrong it is, you are not welcome to continue not posting anything of substance here. Do you get that? I mean, do you understand why I don't bother with the stuff you put out? it's because you're exactly what you accuse me of – except that I see you can't help it.
Look at what you've divulged just since your last post – that you've got nothing whatsoever and that you dismissed John Stossel without even knowing what he presented. You're also incapable of even considering the plus side of any warming, and and you've cited as your sole support an organization and a report that I specifically rejected. Not too bright.
Now I don't want to keep putting you down, but you leave me no other options. Do yourself a favor stay with the faithful. You people feed of yourselves in exactly the same manner that good liberals do with everything they hold dear
I think my posts speak for themselves and I put rational / logical thought into them regarding the topic of global warming.You seem to always be out there trying to pick a fight. Seriously man, they are just blog posts.I mean if I wanted grief… I would have invited my in-laws over.
I'm talking about RIGHT HERE. You've said less than nothing now, You're hopeless.
And each time you come here, it seems you're dumber than before. I mean who asked you to post? You bring it all on yourself and I'm the one looking for a fight? Just DON"T POST, you fool. I'd much rather you do that than to have to wade through the garbage you've written here.
Now I'm telling you – you're done. You have nothing to contribute so do it in your own space. If they could mass produce you, they could super-insulate houses and save a lot of energy, that's just how thick you are.
Ted, I'd like to hear more about what has made you so certain about where you stand on the topic. I wasn't able to catch the show on TV. I've been watching YouTube to see if it appears and the only thing there is a short segment with a few scientists who disagree with the IPCC group, but their testimony didn't blow me away. I'm still forming my thoughts on the topic, and would appreciate knowing what specific tidbits caused you to sound so certain! Share please!
I'm not certain of anything. It's morons like the ones who have shown up here who are. That's the problem. The Earth may be warming… or it may have warmed… or we may have just had a few yeas with above average temps. No one knows for sure, and I emphasize – NO ONE. That's because models are not accurate and even temperature gathering is imprecise.
And even if the Earth is warming, we have no way of knowing what that means. It could be a great thing. And if it isn't, we'll deal with that in an orderly and rational way – again unless people like the ones here have their way, in which case we'll get all sorts of new regulations, taxes, restrictions, inconvenience, and even ruined and lost lives.
And you'll notice that these same people conveniently ignore everything that doesn't fit their mindset. They are dangerous – taking it slow is prudent.
Anyway, here is an account of what Stossel covered. It is by no means conclusive, it's merely rational. The interesting thing is, whenever you confront believers, all they do is refer you to their bible, which, unlike religious believers, they haven't even read, so they can't quote it, much less understand it. So in essence, again as you see here, they've got nothing. Shouldn't they have something?
All I ask of them is a simple step statement… this leads to that… which leads to that… and voilà, we're in hell. I mean, if it's that urgent, shouldn't they be able to detail it just a little?
I was just thinking that I am certain about one thing.
I'm certain that I can answer anything these warmalarmists can throw at me. The problem, as you see, is getting them ro present something.
I couldn't agree more – that they should be able to detail it just a little. Very good point. All I hear is a bunch of "we need to save the world" stuff and I can't figure out what it is that is making them think this way. Even if you read through the IPCC report, it doesn't say the world is ending. Someone else is connecting dots. I don't know which dots. I don't know if the dots have any relationship to each other. I don't know if they are simply making up dots – which is what I usually see from liberals. For example, all the 9/11 conspiracy theories, and the "bad" intentions of Bush and Cheney on the world… No evidence. Make it up, scream it out, and it becomes real.
I was just thinking and typing out my last comment while you posted yours. Sounds like we're saying the same thing. I just want to see something clear. You can't point to the IPCC report and then say "see! there it is!" That's not where it is. I'm reading it. Yes, it's saying the planet is warming. Just like it has in the past. Just after a period of cooling, which they do not explain. How am I supposed to make some sense out of this? If I can't make sense of it, then those who are out trying to save the world are running with no data – just an urge to oppose something, or jump on board some kind of feel-good movement.
Scho,
The arguments for global warming would be thrown out of court. That's if they were able to get presented at all, which is doubtful Warming arguments not only don't meet the reasonable doubt standard, they don't even meet the civil standard of "preponderance of the evidence."
But you and I stand ready and receptive. I know I'd love to be as sure as they are so we can get on with… see, that's the other problem… even if it's warming, how do we know we can do anything about it?
What's worse, we may do things that are not only unnecessary, they may be downright harmful, and that takes us to the medical dictum – first do no harm.
It seems then that even the most competent scientist could be a charlatan when it comes to warming and while there may be someone out there who knows exactly what's happening, he might not be heard because of the din of abstruse information.
And these amateur warming sleuths then have no credibility whatsoever, and if that weren't bad enough, they continue to demonstrate it. In fact, they go out of their way to showcase their ignorance.
It's very irritating, especially when you're perfectly willing to do your part when the course is clear or even strongly suggested. But they haven't got anything. so instead we get wildly diverse information which we're supposed to lump together and accept as evidence.
And I have so much information in reserve that refutes what they might say that I'm actually anxious for that person who can grab my undivided attention. All I can say is, if and when that happens, the person who does it won't be Canadian!?!
Now, look at this from Brit Hume today…
An environmental scientist and Professor Emeritus at the University of California at Santa Barbara says that most scientific evidence suggests global warming will not have serious effects on life on earth.
Daniel Botkin writes on The Wall Street Journal's Web site that many scientists ignore evidence that contradicts alarmist dogma. Botkin says that while the United Nations suggests up to 30 percent of plant and animal life could become extinct because of climate change — the reality is that almost none of the millions of species have disappeared during the past 2.5 million years — with all of its various warming and cooling periods.
He says fears that warming will lead to fresh epidemics of diseases such as malaria and encephalitis are debunked by research indicating temperature changes do not affect distribution or frequency of these diseases.