Some might find this offensive.

Post Reply New Topic

Still, best to see it - whether you agree with global warming or not. If you don't believe in it - more data and explanation of why not to, if you do - more data and explanation by your enemy.

I don't know about what he says in the last few minuted pertaining to the Copenhagen bill but, if he's right on that and we voted these idiots in - we kind of deserve it.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zOXmJ4jd-8&feature=channel[/youtube]

tl;dw

I wonder if anyone has ever applied benfords law against climate records?

I am presently about 10 minutes into the talk, and he has clearly made one of my own favorite points:

"Science is not a belief system, and this is not about beliefs!"

Actually, a lot of the points of theism he brought up had me a bit scared to post it (that usually seems to go as disqualification by self-ad hominem around here) but, what comes after for the next hour and a half is pretty rough and I thought the content of the speech was still very much worth sharing. I still wish he could have at least *tried* to do a bit more Al Gore impersonation though - that was priceless .

I am a long way from being up on this kind of stuff, but I have heard a lot of it in the past and I surely do still get a kick out of people using actual facts to debunk Big Al's tripe!

Only get to 26 minutes so far, but it's mostly a piece of BS. For someone who said he would'nt use any rhetoric he use that A LOT. Most scientist agree with global warming scenario, and THERE IS hard evidences. A LOT of evidence take all over the world The temperature is rising on the planet and is rising faster that the predictions. The glacier melting is faster that predicted too. The ecosystem changes in arctic and antarctic are dramatic (like the lack of planton) The scientists got a hard time figuring how the changes can be that FAST. Listening to scientific evidences right now mean try to minimize (It's too late to stoping it.) the global warming. The first victims will be the tird world country by the way. Right now the politicians don't make enough effort.

It is of course not a matter of beliefs. It is these pseudo scientists that keep pushing the problem and trying to turn it into a manufactroversy. All current data points out that carbon emissions caused a global change in temperature. When you don't follow the evidence and try to make up something up just to justify your skepticism you are not doing science.

It does seem like the whole thing is politicized BS.

Global warming is real; Scientists know this s**t, because they do it for a living and it's their passion, and that of the entire scientific community.

Well, if its BS then I'd have to say that the BS hits a focal climactic in the last half hour, he takes a while to support his thoughts but comes out with, a few of many things 1) carbon dioxide follows rather than causes global warming, 2) thermodynamic radiation wrought at ground level, rather than being trapped in ratio its amounts, is actually released by the atmosphere in correlation to its amounts. He made point of how historical rises and falls in temperature have been all over the place, 5 degree increase in the late 1700's which 'supposedly' makes today pale in comparison. He also claims that, if there is any correlation between global temperature and one possible factor that may be enough to have a noticeable effect its solar activity - that scientists at, NASA I think it was?, had predicted global cooling since 1995 based on the sun becoming less active.

I agree with one thing - people have been really cavalier with the truth on an issue that's supposedly so earth shattering that it will at best utterly destroy the world economy and at worst cause a global catastrophe, ice age, and destroy the world economy. Even though its vogue to blast anyone who throws the world socialist as invoking some version of Godwin's Law, I do see a lot of strange trends in our culture that do make me think our political elites want to change the pattern of how the whole world does business or is governed drastically, and that they're not driven by facts but ideologies of strange sorts, what Jeremy Bentham proudly coined nonsense on stilts. If Gore is wrong, especially if he's wrong with an ideological agenda - its a big problem.

This video could be complete BS - the best way to tell is to watch it, take the salient points, and then we run it against a well build documentary or speech on how global warming is man made; probably the only way we can weed out the BS from both sides. I don't know that I'd find that video as I am mildly of the other persuasion, and I'd figure there has to be someone who believes in global warming here who isn't buying it off of hearsay.

Well this is how i see it taken from wiki

"An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities".[1]

'Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. A few organisations hold non-committal positions.'

And yet a few isolated 'scientists' claim that all these organisations have got it wrong, along with these potential nutjobs there are some extremely arrogant individuals who without doing any studies or fully understanding the subject sit at their computers proliferating the view that the vast majority of the planets climatologists, geologists, oceanographers etc have got it wrong and they the enlightened few know the truth.

I put these people ('scientific' climate change deniers and their brethren)into the same category as creationists IE Delusional and Stupid. In fact it would be interesting to see if there is a correlation between creationists and climate change sceptics

As I see things, those kinds of trends are a great hindrance to learning the truth of any global matter. People have become so busy arguing ideologies that we no longer even really know how to "take the salient points, and then we run it against a well build documentary or speech on how global warming is man made; probably the only way we can weed out the BS from both sides."

Thus, it is *we*, Arthur, who have become your ever-present "delusional and stupid" ones being sucked around by the far-more-arrogant.

The most damning thing the nay sayers could do is audit some weather records with benfords law. I am sure there is some granola muncher working in meteorology somewhere that cant resist fudging some numbers.

Of course that might convince them that they(the nay sayers) are wrong, and they wouldnt want that.


By the way Dent, my grandma says you are wrong. She said "Its just a phase", and she remembers it being nice in the 40s. Before you were a tadpole? And that it was bitterly cold and snowy in the 70s.

But shes very religious, soyou might be right.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOOc5yiIWkg[/youtube]

All going to die anyway etc.

The man in the video clip has got a degree in classics and a diploma in journalism. He's not qualified to make any public proclamations on global warming. I've not time to listen to all 1hr 35mins of it, but just looking at point 1 you've reported above, the fact that warming leads CO2 increase from palaeoclimatic data is expected. Warming from, for example, Milankovitch forcing increases the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by releasing it from the oceans, that CO2 then increases the warming because it is a "greenhouse" gas resulting in more CO2 in the atmosphere etc. In the anthropogenic scenario we increase the CO2 initially by burning fossil fuels. That CO2 causes warming etc. etc. Of course, I've no doubt that the political elite are less interested in addressing this problem for our benefit, and are more concerned with using it to manipulate us for their own ends.

Absolutely, and no matter what the truth might turn out to be.

How can we tell whether/when a politician is manipulating?

Just look to see whether lips are moving.

Out of all this, there may be truth, but I do not accept everything stated as truth...
One of the problems I find is that there seems to be a consensus among certain types that it 'ought' to be true, because it can be used politically so well as a tool. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Global warming may be a fact, but the degree, and the speed of it all is still dependent on models as much as facts. And you can't make a model without assumptions (which is why they're experiments)

I'm sure a hundred years from now, when we actually do know exactly what's going on, that they'll look back at us and wonder what we were thinking...

'sides, I'm hearing that 'scientifically', it's 'too late' anyway....