Man made Global Warming is not taking place

[deva]

Watch and discuss. makes extremely interesting viewing and shows how much the general public can be thrust behind a movement without anything but blind faith

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6irdVZkX40

Let the discussions, swearing and name calling begin

edit: I put that title to draw people in. I don't necessarily believe / disbelieve it at this point

The scientific evidence for human induced global warming is strong enough that there would be no argument at all if it did not affect politics and power. The only reason there is any significant doubt about human induced warming is because big business interests have promoted climate change denial. It is a clever campaign of misdirection and obfuscation and which takes advantage of the fact that it is easy to create doubt. Whisper enough and people will be in doubt. Climate deniers do not have to prove anything, only keep people uncertain and thus prevent social pressure from creating action that forces a change from business as usual. The primary aim of big business is to deny climate change. Secondarily, it is to turn social impetus for change in a direction that impacts their bottom line the least.

[ethios4]

yep. sure. well, i know the consequences, and don't see the dramatic terrible impact. sorry. it forces people to rethink what they do. and i think that's good.

then again, i believe it's needed anyways, so it's hard to think "your way", somehow..

And perhaps you should be willing to rethink what you take for granted? You believe the change is needed anyway...I believe that is one of the things really driving the issue, not whether or not AGW is objectively happening or not.

The primary aim of big business is to deny climate change.

But wait, other people are arguing that there's all this money to be made from changing up the way things are done...wouldn't big business be in a place to capitalize on this if it were true, and wouldn't they thus invite the change and sculpt it to their benefit?

these are the results of the "economic fallout" being preached about. when in actuality it will be the greatest boost to the US economy since the industrial revolution.

I don't mean to be rude, but I don't think you fully appreciate the economic consequences of what is being proposed as a solution for AGW. Again, it's not just that evil corporations will lose money and everything will go green and lovely and we'll all be rich from finally doing the right thing. When you have events like the walkout at Copenhagen, where developing countries are demanding they have lighter environmental restrictions than developed countries, it is made clear that politics is indeed a major factor on both sides of the argument, and the economic consequences are anything but rosy. If 'going green' is such an economic blessing, why aren't these developing countries just building everything 'green' from the start and reaping the economic benefit that 'we' are just too dumb to take advantage of?

For the record, I am concerned about the polluting effects of human society, and in particular my own. I do think it is the responsibility of AGW deniers to provide a scientific model which explains the data better than AGW. I'm not a big fan of massive corporations, particularly multinational ones, and I have plenty of idealistic notions and practices myself.

[ethios4]

As for the video, pretty interesting. I think it's more of a social commentary video than anything scientififc. Monckton could have interviewed a climate change expert with those same questions and gotten a much different and more educated response. Video doesn't really say much about the scientific basis for AGW, but perhaps says a lot about what the average activist really knows.

[slaykent]

the whole debate has been nicely sidelined by people arguing about global warming.

it's pollution. pollution is very real, it needs to be curtailed. that cannot be denied.

Thank Cthulhu someone said it. We have a plastic soup the size of texas off the coast of California and Oregon, and people are arguing about whether we should blame ourselves for global warming. I would love to see some more practical solutions as opposed to arguing this REALLY stale point. FFS, even if we do cut carbon emissions we likely won't see the effects for decades, long after all the horrible predicted famines/ecological crises happen. As for my current favorite solution, I would pick Freeman Dyson's idea of planting 1 trillion genetically engineered trees. Vague, but the kind of mad science idea I can get behind.

I'm really sick of all this "Save The Earth" crap. The absolute worst we will do is cause a major ecological disaster and take a whole bunch of species out with ourselves. THE EARTH WILL BE FINE, IT DOES NOT NEED US.

Save The Earth = Save My Ass

[deva]

The primary aim of big business is to deny climate change.

But wait, other people are arguing that there's all this money to be made from changing up the way things are done...wouldn't big business be in a place to capitalize on this if it were true, and wouldn't they thus invite the change and sculpt it to their benefit?

Hehehe... good subterfuge huh... If there was all sorts of money to be made to change things up they would just do it in the first place. If that were so companies would be rushing to get their first. It is an effective campaign to turn things on their head. As if big business has ever wanted any sort of regulation! Once there is a social impetus to create regulation, then big business will work to negate its effectiveness or turn it to their advantage but to seek out regulation in the first place? Aint never happened and it aint happenin' now.

[slaykent]

Hehehe... good subterfuge huh... If there was all sorts of money to be made to change things up they would just do it in the first place. If that were so companies would be rushing to get their first. It is an effective campaign to turn things on their head. As if big business has ever wanted any sort of regulation! Once there is a social impetus to create regulation, then big business will work to negate its effectiveness or turn it to their advantage but to seek out regulation in the first place? Aint never happened and it aint happenin' now.

Just wait until cap and trade hits Wall Street. A commodity that is guaranteed by the government to be scarcer as time goes on? Here comes another bubble!

[guess]

whichever way you look at it, You've GOT to see this!

Monckton vs Gore : The Rap Battle

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBzR0-j0O0o

[crofter]

As for the video, pretty interesting. I think it's more of a social commentary video than anything scientififc. Monckton could have interviewed a climate change expert with those same questions and gotten a much different and more educated response. Video doesn't really say much about the scientific basis for AGW, but perhaps says a lot about what the average activist really knows.

Quite.

[BinaryB]

the whole debate has been nicely sidelined by people arguing about global warming.

it's pollution. pollution is very real, it needs to be curtailed. that cannot be denied.

Yep.

[Nicknackerski]

interesting to say the least, of course its impossible to make any kind of judgement on anything when records have been kept for such a tiny amount of time.

I see you've been on graphs.com again Emissary!

weren't you arguing last week for the other side! LOL!

your local mayor is gonna be pissed.

[nuperspective]

the whole debate has been nicely sidelined by people arguing about global warming.

it's pollution. pollution is very real, it needs to be curtailed. that cannot be denied.

couldnt agree more.

this whole side show is beginning to get a bit tiresome. its become perfectly clear that there is no intent for our governments to do anything. the sins of the past have to be paid for and dumping that much shit into the air is a road to the shit house and poor house.

that fact that all our governments are prepared to prop up cartels that are wringing their hands at the prospect that shit they are peddling is getting rarer and more expensive speak volumes.

who gives a fuck about climate change. cold or hot. it boils down to sustainable living through sustainable cleaner energy.

[ethios4]

it boils down to sustainable living through sustainable cleaner energy.

+1

[Emissary]

I see you've been on graphs.com again Emissary!

weren't you arguing last week for the other side! LOL!

your local mayor is gonna be pissed.

No that was about peak oil, glad to see you were paying attention

[Green Lemon]

This pretty clearly shows that whatever else, any "controversy" in the scientific community over AGW is extremely isolated. In other words, controversy has been manufactured in our media system, because the word controversy implies something like equal footing to both sides. The peer reviewed journals could not be clearer (study done in 2004):

The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

more here: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/f ... /5702/1686

Remember, this was simply a survey done of studies in peer reviewed journals which mentioned the words climate change. There simply is not a controversy in the scientific community on the basic theory of AGW, barring a few individuals out of tens of thousands.

Its a similar tactic used in the evolution debate, which goes like this:

1. Evolution denier challenges scientist about the mechanism of evolution.
2. Scientist issues angry rebuttal.
3. Evolution denier says, "Look, there's a controversy!"

[Green Lemon]

I don't mean to be rude, but I don't think you fully appreciate the economic consequences of what is being proposed as a solution for AGW. Again, it's not just that evil corporations will lose money and everything will go green and lovely and we'll all be rich from finally doing the right thing. When you have events like the walkout at Copenhagen, where developing countries are demanding they have lighter environmental restrictions than developed countries, it is made clear that politics is indeed a major factor on both sides of the argument, and the economic consequences are anything but rosy. If 'going green' is such an economic blessing, why aren't these developing countries just building everything 'green' from the start and reaping the economic benefit that 'we' are just too dumb to take advantage of?

Because those green economic benefits come from where? They come from designing, manufacturing, and selling advanced technology. Because you need an advanced university system. Because you need a developed market economy. Because people who one generation ago where planting rice and raising pigs for themselves only are not really equipped to understand why and how wind turbines, solar electricity, and biofuels might keep their children dry and fed and wealthy.

How many products we use today were spinoffs from the space program? Renewable and hyperefficient technology IS the next big thing. It has nothing to do with global warming, and everything to do with peak oil. When the rules of the game change, there are always winners and losers in a society. The people moaning about the "costs" are those who will be the biggest losers. Sorry, no pity here. Get on the game. Life is adaptation. Is China gonna kick our ass at this, too? We'll have only ourselves to blame.

If we were serious about dealing with AGW, we'd be giving away our green technology to the small poor nations...nations which are poor, do not forget, in a large part due to colonialism. Is it really so surprising that they expect us to shoulder the burden of the mess we created? I'm not holding my breath for that to happen, though.