Global Warming Do You Care?

[HS Mauberley]

The holocaust was a genocide targetted at specific groups. The end of the human species is a mass collective suicide, not intentional of course, but still happening. Again, these are not similar situations, but yes, they both result in mass death.

It's not suicide. It's not quite murder either but it's a lot closer to murder than to suicide. The vast majority of humanity have low carbon footprints; they're just too poor to do otherwise. It's the west and - outside this area - wealthy elites who are condemning the biosphere to death in return for (largely) short-term gratification of trivial desires. You have to have the brain of flea really to believe that climate change is some grand conspriacy of governments, corporations, academics and environmentalists; this destruction of the planet is being carried out in full knowledge of its consequences. The directors of IG Faben may have had no great desire to murder the Jews of Europe and may have simply been pursuing the profit motive but they were as guilty as the SS guards who did the actual murdering and I suspect that history (if there is one) will look on those alive now in much the same light.

[Jingthing]

HS, I am finished talking to you. Your analogy is despicable and gross. Keep the subject to global warming, please. This is not a holocaust thread.

Edited December 11, 2007 by Jingthing

[HS Mauberley]

HS, I am finished talking to you. Your analogy is despicable and gross. Keep the subject to global warming, please. This is not a holocaust thread.

I’m sure those who will die prematurely as a direct consequence of over-indulgence by the rich would – if they knew – take great solace from your indignation.

[canuckamuck]

The climate of this planet is always changing. It was clever of the science community to figure out about twenty years ago that the trend was warmer not colder. They weren’t very far into their ice age plan yet. With the earth getting warmer they have all of the proof they need for their fear campaign. Everyone cashes in, the scientists get paid to confirm the theory, and the manufacturers get to have a whole new low carbon product line.

I would laugh my shorts off, if they had to switch back again in a decade. Global Ice Age coming, humans are using too much fluoride, or something like that.

[Jingthing]

I accept the science. I think it is overwhelming, not a fad. Even George Bush accepts the science.

[HS Mauberley]

Or the brain of a sheep/lemming to follow the hype.

Ah! Stupid me for believing what is said by the vastly overwhelming majority of scientists working in the field. How short-sighted of me. All along I should have been reading the ill-informed, illiterate blogs of self-serving conservative <deleted>. What independence of mind you nay-sayers show. How noble! How....renaissance of you! Did you say you believe that the moon is made of cheese and that the world was created in 7 days in 4004 BC? Tell me more. It sounds like an interesting theory.

[Jingthing]

HS, now do you understand my pessimism? We will have these nay sayers in denial until it is too late.

[HS Mauberley]

HS, now do you understand my pessimism? We will have these nay sayers in denial until it is too late.

I agree. I am, as I said, extremely pessimistic about our collective future. I think that there is little chance of keeping warming below 2 degrees (a big thank you there to Exxon and your friends in the White House) and that means that there is a real risk of the collapse of the Greenland ice shelf (which will raise sea levels by around 7 metres) and, worse, triggering the death of the Amazon which would ultimately but enough carbon into the atmosphere to boost warming by something another 1.5 degrees. This in turn may trigger a widespread melting of the Siberian permafrost which in turn may pull the trigger on the clathrate gun. If this happens, it's game over for everyone and everything. We would be looking at global temperature rises in the order of six degrees (or more). The last time this happened (at the P-T boundary 250 million years ago), 95% of all species went extinct. I think that there is a very real danger of this playing out (not, of course, in my lifetime but over the course of centuries). Even without climate change, we've been shitting on our doorstep for so long that the long-term survival of the biosphere (in a form which we understand) would have to be questioned; drawdown of aquifers, extinction rates, peak oil, overpopulation, topsoil depletion, pollution, and God only knows what else, mean that the future is not looking like somewhere I want to be and all this is largely something which the rich have done to everyone - and everything - else. At least 50 years ago, we could pretend to be ignorant but now there really is no excuse.

[canuckamuck]

HS, now do you understand my pessimism? We will have these nay sayers in denial until it is too late.

I agree. I am, as I said, extremely pessimistic about our collective future. I think that there is little chance of keeping warming below 2 degrees (a big thank you there to Exxon and your friends in the White House) and that means that there is a real risk of the collapse of the Greenland ice shelf (which will raise sea levels by around 7 metres) and, worse, triggering the death of the Amazon which would ultimately but enough carbon into the atmosphere to boost warming by something another 1.5 degrees. This in turn may trigger a widespread melting of the Siberian permafrost which in turn may pull the trigger on the clathrate gun. If this happens, it's game over for everyone and everything. We would be looking at global temperature rises in the order of six degrees (or more). The last time this happened (at the P-T boundary 250 million years ago), 95% of all species went extinct. I think that there is a very real danger of this playing out (not, of course, in my lifetime but over the course of centuries). Even without climate change, we've been shitting on our doorstep for so long that the long-term survival of the biosphere (in a form which we understand) would have to be questioned; drawdown of aquifers, extinction rates, peak oil, overpopulation, topsoil depletion, pollution, and God only knows what else, mean that the future is not looking like somewhere I want to be and all this is largely something which the rich have done to everyone - and everything - else. At least 50 years ago, we could pretend to be ignorant but now there really is no excuse.

Well there it is: the yawning chasm in your theory. "The last time this happened" Where was Exxon the last time this happened? 250 million years ago we had 95% more species? Would that mean we had 100 million species of insects then? Wow you didn't just drink the Kool-Aid bub you injected it.

And to tell you the honest truth, Canada could use about 5 degrees to the positive. We can hardly use half our country it's so <deleted> cold up their. Bring on the tanning butter. I might even move back there some day.

As for the rest of your comments, is there any doomsday story you won't buy. How can you be afraid of peak oil and anti carbon at the same time? Peak oil should be Shangri-La to you.

[HS Mauberley]

Well there it is: the yawning chasm in your theory. "The last time this happened" Where was Exxon the last time this happened?

I see. So either you think every single instance of planetary warming of the last 4 billion years has had the same single cause (in which case, there is not one single scientist who would support you) or you don't mean this and your criticism is invalid. Which is it Einstein?

250 million years ago we had 95% more species? Would that mean we had 100 million species of insects then? Wow you didn't just drink the Kool-Aid bub you injected it.

Sadly, evolutionary theory is obviously a mystery to you but don't worry, some of us had a education beyond kindergarten.

As for the rest of your comments, is there any doomsday story you won't buy. How can you be afraid of peak oil and anti carbon at the same time? Peak oil should be Shangri-La to you.

Not really. It's an unfortunate truth that not all of our problems has a solution (or at least a solution that is painless). For example, those of us with some intelligence are forced to share the planet with the stunningly ignorant but what can we do about it?

[Jingthing]

For the record, if it ain't global warming, it will be something else. WW1 and WW2 were supposed to be the wars to end all wars. We are not evolving quickly enough to keep up with our ability to destroy ourselves and our planet ...

Many scientists think the chances of us surviving as a species 50 years is 50 50. Have a nice day!

Edited December 11, 2007 by Jingthing

[altman]

the specific cause is subject to interpretation, but the bottom line is either the planetary climate is getting warmer or it is not.

if it is, that means things will change for mankind. probably for the worse. it may even portend the extinction of the species.

if it is not, then all the 'scare mongering' will only lead to new and better ways to live compatibly with existing resources.

either way it seems that a sensible and prudent man would want to err on the side of long term survivability. especially if they have chosen to have children.

beyond that i just don't see any argument.

[canuckamuck]

Here's the deal I will explain it once, because I have already entertained enough of these anti carbon cheerleaders and it always ends the same. It is akin to telling someone their religion is flawed. Unless they already believe that, you aren't going to see them move an inch.

The earth has been warming for a while. Something that has repeated over and over throughout history. I certainly don't dispute that. Whatever caused it all those other times, I assure you science is still working that out. The other planets near us are warming too. A coincidence? Nah couldn't be.

Science in the last 50 years has gone from a noble art to a massive economic machine. If you want to make money in science, you have to get someone to pay you to conduct your work. Your job is to make someone else money. If you discover along the way that the pet theory of the big boys (major foundations, society's and corporations) is wrong, you better keep your mouth shut or you won't be working long. In fact so many keep their mouth shut, that all the other scientists become confident that their theories must be true, and they make their own theories based on the already flawed science. The end result is reams of science based on an ideology rather than fact. Any scientist coming out against manmade climate change is an outcast and is thrown to the dogs.

Why would the big foundations and corporations want a crisis? Simply because it is the easiest way to make money. If you got a crisis, people buy stuff. If you have got a cause people send money. Chevy could keep selling cars with internal combustion engines, but wouldn't it be better for their bottom lines if all the 7 year old cars became obsolete and everyone would have to buy greener ones? How about a new advancement every 3 or 4 years, wouldn't that move new cars a whole lot quicker.

It's not like the power brokers of the world just woke up one day and said lets start a crisis. They are always looking for a crisis. It used to be war was the best stimulator of the economy. Today that doesn't work as well. But the annihilation of life on earth, well, that is something with teeth. People have to buy into that; they can't afford to make a mistake like that.

Go ahead and mock me, that is the hallmark of the whole climate change defense: "We can't be wrong. Everybody who has a vested interest in our theory agrees with us" therefore you and your five scientists with a conscience are flat earthers.

It doesn't make a difference anyways, people should look after the earth, keep it clean so we don't get sick, protect the animals so our kids can see them. Why don't we just push that angle, at least that logic path is indisputable. Oh yeah, it doesn't sell many products. Without fear nothing much happens.

[canuckamuck]

250 million years ago we had 95% more species? Would that mean we had 100 million species of insects then? Wow you didn't just drink the Kool-Aid bub you injected it.

Sadly, evolutionary theory is obviously a mystery to you but don't worry, some of us had a education beyond kindergarten.

No really I am asking, are you suggesting that we have 95% more species now than we did 250 million years ago, or, are you saying more like we had about 200 million species of animals then and we now have 95% less of them. I'll help you out a touch, we have around 1.7 to 2 million species of critters around today almost half of which are insects.

[mogoso]

The holocaust was a genocide targeted at specific groups. The end of the human species is a mass collective suicide, not intentional of course, but still happening. Again, these are not similar situations, but yes, they both result in mass death. Really, of course I support activists trying to save the world, but how any rational person can think that countries like China, India, Russia, the US etc. are going to agree to take enough dramatic action early enough is just a more optimistic person than I will ever be. People don't generally change until there is an observable crisis that directly impacts them in a big way, and by that time, science is telling us it is too late.

Even though the US didn't sign the Kyoto treaty CO2 emissions were down 1.5% last year, Europes were slighty up from the previous years. I hope US position will be the use of technology to keep lowering emissions, and using less fuel through conservation. But this has nothing to do with with global warming, its still a scam. Although in two years my home will be almost totally green, my position is to use less resources, with less waste, but not for the assinine global warming scam, but it's the right thing to do living in an increasingly crowded world.

[mogoso]

I accept the science. I think it is overwhelming, not a fad. Even George Bush accepts the science.

Wait a minute George Bush is mostly despised on this board. Now he gets it right, when agreeing with the masses. I had more respect for him the other way.

[HS Mauberley]

Even though the US didn't sign the Kyoto treaty CO2 emissions were down 1.5% last year

Since the early 1990s, US emissions have fallen in only two years. In every other year, they have grown, so don’t get too excited about it.

No really I am asking, are you suggesting that we have 95% more species now than we did 250 million years ago, or, are you saying more like we had about 200 million species of animals then and we now have 95% less of them

The number of species at the PT boundary and the number of species now are unrelated. As I said, 95% of species then in existence became extinct. After 10s of millions of years, evolutionary forces led to the re-emergence of biodiversity. I can’t really see what’s confusing about this. There have been a number of mass extinctions in earth’s history. At each point, bio-diversity collapsed and then re-evolved. Did you really not know this?

The earth has been warming for a while. Something that has repeated over and over throughout history. I certainly don't dispute that. Whatever caused it all those other times, I assure you science is still working that out.

Quite. These temperature fluctuations have had multiple causes; increased volcanism, oscillations in the earth’s orbit, changes in biologic activity, plate tectonics, etc. etc. If you accept that there have been multiple causes in the past, the objection that “we weren’t here 251 million years ago so theories of anthropogenic climate change must be wrong” becomes wildly illogical. If you don’t accept this, you’re don’t share any ground with mainstream science. We’ve now added a new cause to this long list – removing carbon from the ground and putting it into the atmosphere. It’s really simple:

We know that CO2 (and other gases) has a greenhouse effect (without this effect we wouldn’t be here). This has been known since the work of Arrhenius in the 19th century (it’s not radical, ground-breaking science)

We know that concentrations of atmospheric CO2 have been increasing since the industrial revolution (from around 280ppm to over 380ppm now or more likely 420ppm after one takes into account CO2-equivalents).

We know that increasing atmospheric CO2 will increase temperatures according to the formula Total Forcing = 5.35 log(CO2_e/CO2_orig)

And finally we know that global temperature has in fact been increasing, as we would expect given the above. There is a mountain of evidence for every one of the propositions given above, evidence which can be found by the most cursory investigation of the subject.

The other planets near us are warming too.

No, they’re not. Have a look at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192 for a discussion of this (I think I've already posted this, but never mind). This is the problem with getting ‘facts’ from blogs written by people who have no understanding of the issues at stake. They’re full of lies.

Science in the last 50 years has gone from a noble art to a massive economic machine. If you want to make money in science, you have to get someone to pay you to conduct your work. Your job is to make someone else money. If you discover along the way that the pet theory of the big boys (major foundations, society's and corporations) is wrong, you better keep your mouth shut or you won't be working long. In fact so many keep their mouth shut, that all the other scientists become confident that their theories must be true, and they make their own theories based on the already flawed science. The end result is reams of science based on an ideology rather than fact. Any scientist coming out against manmade climate change is an outcast and is thrown to the dogs.

Really? Want to provide some evidence of this? Given the regularity with which this stupid, groundless argument is brought out, there must be 1000s of scientists who have suffered this fate. Every time someone tries to make an argument against ACC, you can be absolutely certain that they’ll come out with this one so who are all these scientists being silenced? Names and publications, please.

A second point is why would this only apply to theories of climate change? I can see no reason why the argument wouldn’t apply equally to every single widely established scientific proposition. Evolution? All lies, dissenting scientists silenced ideology. Relativity? All lies, dissenting scientists silenced by ideology. The germ theory of disease? All lies, dissenting scientists silenced by ideology. The round earth theory? All lies, dissenting scientists silenced by ideology. You see, to make this type of argument you need to undo the whole edifice of scientific knowledge.

Thirdly (or second-and-a-half-ly), in the unlikely event that alternative theories of climate change displace theories of ACC, what would stop these theories being subject to the same claim? If being an established theory is grounds – in itself – for a theory’s being wrong, there is no such thing as science.

Fourthly, what there is evidence for (and evidence by the truck load) is attempts by corporate interests to generate doubt in the public mind about climate change. If you don’t believe me, have a look at Exxon Secrets for details of the amount of money they have made available in an attempt to rubbish the science. On top of this, we know that some governments have gone out of their way to suppress scientific evidence for climate change (pretty much any time the Bush administration has brushed up against this issue, it has tried to undermine the science.) Clearly, it’s mission accomplished for a depressingly large chunk of the population.

it doesn't make a difference anyways, people should look after the earth, keep it clean so we don't get sick, protect the animals so our kids can see them. Why don't we just push that angle, at least that logic path is indisputable. Oh yeah, it doesn't sell many products.

If anyone thinks that de-carbonising our societies is about selling products, they really have got the wrong end of the stick. The only way we’re going to get out of this mess (and this is the reason why we’re probably not going to) is if we stop thinking about buying and start thinking about living. Consumption is the problem and you don’t solve the problem of over-consumption by buying more.

[JimsKnight]

Give it a rest will you!

All these theories are considered gospel to you socialistic change-the-world-types.

Even if global warming does take place. The planet will go on the way it's always done; adapting and evolving and so will humans.

Remember the Ice Age? That was 10,000 years ago. Humankind did ok then and survived that. Considering that humans back then were pretty much living in the stone age I think that in post-modern society with all our technological developments we won't exactly be at risk of extinction either. Funny how It seems to be a doomsayers consider the human race incapable of surviving a few degree's here and there. God help them if a real disaster comes along.

There's plenty of landmass that can benefit from global warming; The North-West passage can finally be unlocked, making the lengthy detour to the Panama canal redundant for many of the shipping magnates.

More land can be used for farming and development. Places considered too extreme and cold for oil exploration and development will become more feasible.

All you fear stricken posters worrying over a few paltry degrees here and there ought to get yourselves a backbone and quit whining. Theres a disasters ten times worse than the supposed global warming like: meteorites, comets, terrorism, megatsunami, Technological singularity, Gulf Stream shutdown, Antibiotic resistance, Overfishing, Nuclear warfare, Global Pandemic and Overpopulation.

Funny how these never seem to be mentioned by these high and mighty climate change scientists isn't it

[HS Mauberley]

Nice to see a comprehensive, scientific rebuttal there. Very impressive. Keep it up.

By the way, burnt any witches in the village square recently?

Theres a disasters ten times worse than the supposed global warming like: meteorites, comets, terrorism, megatsunami, Technological singularity, Gulf Stream shutdown, Antibiotic resistance, Overfishing, Nuclear warfare, Global Pandemic and Overpopulation.

Funny how these never seem to be mentioned by these high and mighty climate change scientists isn't it

Got yourself in a bit of a muddle there, haven't you. Although it's not likely, what might be the cause of the shutdown of the gulfstream? No idea. I'll give a clue. Two words. First word starts with G. Second word rhymes with 'forming'. Still no ideas? OK. Here's another one. What do studies of mitochondrial DNA suggest happened to the human population during periods of extreme cooling in the past? Still don't get it? Alright. One more. Just how mental do you have to be to suggest that one of the benefits of global warming is that "places considered too extreme and cold for oil exploration and development will become more feasible."?

Edited December 12, 2007 by HS Mauberley

[mogoso]

Nice to see a comprehensive, scientific rebuttal there. Very impressive. Keep it up.

By the way, burnt any witches in the village square recently?

Theres a disasters ten times worse than the supposed global warming like: meteorites, comets, terrorism, megatsunami, Technological singularity, Gulf Stream shutdown, Antibiotic resistance, Overfishing, Nuclear warfare, Global Pandemic and Overpopulation.

Funny how these never seem to be mentioned by these high and mighty climate change scientists isn't it

Got yourself in a bit of a muddle there, haven't you. Although it's not likely, what might be the cause of the shutdown of the gulfstream? No idea. I'll give a clue. Two words. First word starts with G. Second word rhymes with 'forming'. Still no ideas? OK. Here's another one. What do studies of mitochondrial DNA suggest happened to the human population during periods of extreme cooling in the past? Still don't get it? Alright. One more. Just how mental do you have to be to suggest that one of the benefits of global warming is that "places considered too extreme and cold for oil exploration and development will become more feasible."?

Basically Global warming stopped ten years ago, and the earth has cooled slightly the past three years.

Yes the artic ice cap has declined 1%, but the antartic has grown. (last year 780,000 sq. miles)

Its all about the money and the fleecing of the haves to give to the have nots, to be administerred by an increasingly powerful UN

[SamuiJens]

What would it be like without thee internet?

[canuckamuck]

No really I am asking, are you suggesting that we have 95% more species now than we did 250 million years ago, or, are you saying more like we had about 200 million species of animals then and we now have 95% less of them

The number of species at the PT boundary and the number of species now are unrelated. As I said, 95% of species then in existence became extinct. After 10s of millions of years, evolutionary forces led to the re-emergence of biodiversity. I can't really see what's confusing about this. There have been a number of mass extinctions in earth's history. At each point, bio-diversity collapsed and then re-evolved. Did you really not know this?

I would respond to your entire post but I don't think we have the bandwidth. I would prefer to start by nailing down some of your shotgun statistics.

You say, "The number of species at the PT boundary and the number of species now are unrelated." But this isn't so. The reason I asked about the 95 % is because you and your ilk just toss around numbers and assume your point is made. It is predictable that people who argue this way rarely know more than a couple of stats from the Discovery Channel, but since you saw it there it must be true.

To come up with this fairly specific number of 95% species die-off, from a time 250 million years past, one would expect that there is a fairly hard number of actual species allotted to that time frame. Do you know what that number is? Are there scientists out there who have counted the species of 250 million years ago? And then the number of species from say, a million years later? No not in a literal sense there isn't. There is no way that we can have hard facts like that. How many actual fossils from that time frame have been identified? Are they sure they got em all? Maybe there's a hundred million more in Yugoslavia under a football stadium?

What the masters of Science have done is made some broad estimation based on fossil records and geologic layers, a self confirming art which continually shuffles its assumptions as new surprises appear. Truly, their estimate of the amount of species alive 250 million years ago is only their best guess. And that's the way it has to be because when you are looking at research about something that far in the past, guessing is as good as it gets. And that's the problem with this whole house of cards argument. You have nothing but an endless roll of circular arguments, each dependant on yet another improvable fact. Each arrived at by calculating past assumptions as fact. For climate change science, we are betting the farm on glacial ice cores and crossing our fingers that we've got the right formula to count backwards to 250 million BC. I wonder what the acceptable margin for error is?

Now you continue to bury yourself with this re-appearing and disappearing biodiversity condition that comes and goes whenever the earth needs to repopulate its flora and fauna. Evolutionary forces you call them. Is that like planetary ESP? Very convenient but who turns on the mechanism? How long does it take a species to become two species? Is it less time than it takes for a species to die out because of changing conditions?

It seems to me multiple species can be wiped out quite rapidly, like in your example from 250 million years ago. But for one to become two, that must be quite extraordinary luck. All those beneficial mutations worked out so well that the new creature is now not only improved and thriving but also severed from its old line and only capable of reproducing with its own new kind. I think that would take a really long time to happen even once. When was the last time you seen a creature with a beneficial mutation? How many in a row does it take before you're a bonified new species?

Now you are proposing that this extraordinary good fortune has kicked in and repopulated our biosphere multiple times in the last 250 million years. Always the earth has had the good fortune that a remnant of critters remained to become the next catalyst in the evolutionary cycle. Always the bad conditions were not quite bad enough to knock us back to zilch. And every time we avoided having some sort of super species that ate all the rest. How about a toxic multi species virus? It's a great story for sure. Requires a bit of holding your nose though doesn't it? It seems more likely that if we had 200 million species 250 million years ago, we would probably be down about 95% by now.

Now I know this is the sacred cow of science here, and I am blaspheming away my soul. But if I can see some daylight through the megalithic science of descent, why should I have any faith at all in the newborn baby science of Global warming?

[canuckamuck]

The earth has been warming for a while. Something that has repeated over and over throughout history. I certainly don't dispute that. Whatever caused it all those other times, I assure you science is still working that out.

Quite. These temperature fluctuations have had multiple causes; increased volcanism, oscillations in the earth's orbit, changes in biologic activity, plate tectonics, etc. etc. If you accept that there have been multiple causes in the past, the objection that "we weren't here 251 million years ago so theories of anthropogenic climate change must be wrong" becomes wildly illogical. If you don't accept this, you're don't share any ground with mainstream science. We've now added a new cause to this long list – removing carbon from the ground and putting it into the atmosphere. It's really simple:

Try to make sense. You agree with me that we have had multiple contributors to climate change in the past. All of these culprits still exist. And then you say I am wildly illogical to conclude if they can't pin down the ones previous, then they also can't pin this one down either. Just adding a new cause to the list (good choice of words by the way) doesn't make it any more suspect. 10 men in a room and one man is killed, add another man and another murder happens, the new guy is the killer, case closed.

[canuckamuck]

The other planets near us are warming too.

No, they're not. Have a look at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192 for a discussion of this (I think I've already posted this, but never mind). This is the problem with getting 'facts' from blogs written by people who have no understanding of the issues at stake. They're full of lies.

I looked at your unbiased and rational link. Nothing surprising there. Looking at just 30 years of Martian observation they have established that there is nothing out of the ordinary in the receding ice caps because they have determined that Mars has a 170,000 year cycle that it has to work itself through. Kind of like using the same argument to back up both sides of the story don't you think? Mars is on a big cycle so don't worry. The earth however is doomed because we went up half a degree in the last century. The Earth doesn't have cycles I guess.

[SamuiJens]

The Earth doesn't have cycles I guess.

Yes, There are motorcycles

And even Bicycles

And on and on we go...

d

o

w

n

h

i

l

l

Edited December 12, 2007 by SamuiJens

[canuckamuck]

Science in the last 50 years has gone from a noble art to a massive economic machine. If you want to make money in science, you have to get someone to pay you to conduct your work. Your job is to make someone else money. If you discover along the way that the pet theory of the big boys (major foundations, society's and corporations) is wrong, you better keep your mouth shut or you won't be working long. In fact so many keep their mouth shut, that all the other scientists become confident that their theories must be true, and they make their own theories based on the already flawed science. The end result is reams of science based on an ideology rather than fact. Any scientist coming out against manmade climate change is an outcast and is thrown to the dogs.

Really? Want to provide some evidence of this? I am sorry I couldn't find any evidence that scientists are making a lot of money these days. Given the regularity with which this stupid, groundless argument is brought out, there must be 1000s of scientists who have suffered this fate. Or perhaps it is simply true. Every time someone tries to make an argument against ACC, you can be absolutely certain that they'll come out with this one so who are all these scientists being silenced? Names and publications, please. I can't hear them, they have been silenced

A second point is why would this only apply to theories of climate change? I can see no reason why the argument wouldn't apply equally to every single widely established scientific proposition. Evolution? See my first rebuttal All lies, dissenting scientists silenced ideology. Relativity? Relativity is math, I am not disputing equations. All lies, dissenting scientists silenced by ideology. The germ theory of disease? I can put germs on you and make you sick. seems fairly testable right? All lies, dissenting scientists silenced by ideology. The round earth theory? It's not round it's an oblate spheroid were you born in a barn. All lies, dissenting scientists silenced by ideology. You see, to make this type of argument you need to undo the whole edifice of scientific knowledge. No you really don't

Thirdly (or second-and-a-half-ly), in the unlikely event that alternative theories of climate change displace theories of ACC, what would stop these theories being subject to the same claim? If being an established theory is grounds – in itself – for a theory's being wrong, there is no such thing as science. In this case being wrong is a massive misuse of political power and fear-mongering which threatens the economy of most nations.

Fourthly, what there is evidence for (and evidence by the truck load) (scientific term?) is attempts by corporate interests to generate doubt in the public mind about climate change. If you don't believe me, have a look at Exxon Secrets for details of the amount of money they have made available in an attempt to rubbish the science. You can't have a great cause without a great Satan, the big loser here is the petrochemical industry. The rest get the golden eggs. On top of this, we know (careful with that we, you use it a lot) that some governments have gone out of their way to suppress scientific evidence for climate change (pretty much any time the Bush administration has brushed up against this issue, it has tried to undermine the science.) Clearly, it's mission accomplished for a depressingly large chunk of the population. Yeah the most definitive arguments usually start with "pretty much" your Liberal slip is showing.

it doesn't make a difference anyways, people should look after the earth, keep it clean so we don't get sick, protect the animals so our kids can see them. Why don't we just push that angle, at least that logic path is indisputable. Oh yeah, it doesn't sell many products.

If anyone thinks that de-carbonising our societies is about selling products, they really have got the wrong end of the stick. The only way we're going to get out of this mess (and this is the reason why we're probably not going to) is if we stop thinking about buying and start thinking about living. Consumption is the problem and you don't solve the problem of over-consumption by buying more.

Yeah there is no money being made in green products. None at all.

[mrbojangles]

why should I have any faith at all in the newborn baby science of Global warming?

Sort of sums it up nicely

[pointofview]

Huh? That's a new one but why let something as insignificant as reality get in way of paranoid delusions, eh? OK. You stick with your ludicrous fantasies. Clearly you haven't read anything on this subject (or if you have, you haven't understood it) and, even more clearly, you're determined to disbelieve what reality tells you (which is as good a definition of insanity as any).

Global warming is a scam - fact. Why do you think Al Gore was awarded the Nobel prize for pushing this crock! Think fear, control and a nice little (big) earner. Of course dont take my word for it - maybe youd like to consider all the gagged scientists - threatend and intimidated - who state the true science.

Then again i suppose there are still so many sheeple who think a bunch of arabs living in caves downed the twin towers - and WT7 just fell down. Oh, and they also shipped all of the evidence over to china 2 days later for good house keeping!

Edited December 12, 2007 by pointofview

[Jingthing]

I hope the global warming skeptics are correct, because otherwise, well, you know, sizzle sizzle.

[SamuiJens]

Not in our life time, Jingthing. But more likely our grand-childrens! For the sceptics here, have you been to the Maldives? Well I have and the Islands are getting smaller=water raising, wonder why???