Go to Villagebet.com.au for free horse racing tips - Click here now |
|
Climate Change - Global Warming.. |
Post Reply | Page <1 34567 538> |
Author | ||
questions
Champion Joined: 21 Feb 2007 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 9858 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
i dont know about forbes magazine and which way it leans and it ran the story a week ago that stated the report to be released on the 26th of september will show that the changes to the worlds temperature were using inaccurate modelling.
the issue has always been that they are using figures at the etreme and the margin of error is large enough that the opposite may be occuring. the die hard predictions of 2006-7 when their was a ground swell of support around the world, before the GFC distracted them, of what 2015 would be like are being proved to be completely wrong. the reality is that scientists can always use statistics to the extreme to put forward a case for more funding to prove themselves correct. most of the terrible circumstances supposedly a result of climate change would of happened anway. when they stood up and talking about islands dissapearing and stating these were the first of climate refugees, they did not mention that the island did not exist 200 years ago and it was on an unstable atol and the locals for years had been using dynamite for fishing. if you go through human history you see these type of fear grabbing stories and the desperate please by those to do something. some have been mentioned above and they exist in every century. in the 1800's they had people wanting dramatic action on a horse manure crisis and that by 1950 all the streets of london would be covered by horse manure. it is human nature to want to believe in a crisis to feel important and special and significant and it is the way it has always been. |
||
"it's not gambling if you're absolutely sure you're gonna win" Barney Stinson
|
||
Shammy Davis
Champion Joined: 14 Dec 2012 Status: Offline Points: 8567 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
June 20, 2006
Why Liberals Fear Global Warming More Than Conservatives DoByDennis PragerObservers of contemporary society will surely have noted that a liberal is far more likely to fear global warming than a conservative. Why is this? After all, if the science is as conclusive as Al Gore, Time, Newsweek, The New York Times and virtually every other spokesman of the Left says it is, conservatives are just as likely to be scorched and drowned and otherwise done in by global warming as liberals will. So why aren't non-leftists nearly as exercised as leftists are? Do conservatives handle heat better? Are libertarians better swimmers? Do religious people love their children less? The usual liberal responses -- to label a conservative position racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic or the like -- obviously don't apply here. So, liberals would have to fall back on the one remaining all-purpose liberal explanation: "big business." They might therefore explain the conservative-liberal divide over global warming thus: Conservatives don't care about global warming because they prefer corporate profits to saving the planet.
< style="border: 0px currentColor; : ;" height="0" ="http://c14.zedo.com/OzoDB/cutils/R56_7/jsc/598/zpu.?n=598;f=1;z=2-110" Border="0" width="0" scrolling="no"> But such an explanation could not explain the vast majority of conservatives who are not in any way tied into the corporate world (like this writer, who has no stocks and who, moreover, regards big business as amoral as leftists do). No, the usual liberal dismissals of conservatives and their positions just don't explain this particularly illuminating difference between liberals and conservatives. Here are six more likely explanations: -- The Left is prone to hysteria. The belief that global warming will destroy the world is but one of many hysterical notions held on the Left. As noted in a previous column devoted to the Left and hysteria, many on the Left have been hysterical about the dangers of the PATRIOT Act and the NSA surveillance of phone numbers (incipient fascism); secondhand smoke (killing vast numbers of people); drilling in the remotest area of Alaska (major environmental despoliation); and opposition to same-sex marriage (imminent Christian theocracy). -- The Left believes that if The New York Times and other liberal news sources report something, it is true. If the cover of Time magazine says, "Global Warming: Be Worried, Very Worried," liberals get worried, very worried, about global warming. It is noteworthy that liberals, one of whose mottos is "question authority," so rarely question the authority of the mainstream media. Now, of course, conservatives, too, often believe mainstream media. But conservatives have other sources of news that enable them to achieve the liberal ideal of questioning authority. Whereas few liberals ever read non-liberal sources of information or listen to conservative talk radio, the great majority of conservatives are regularly exposed to liberal news, liberal editorials and liberal films, and they have also received many years of liberal education. -- The Left believes in experts. Of course, every rational person, liberal or conservative, trusts the expertise of experts -- such as when experts in biology explain the workings of mitochondria, or when experts in astronomy describe the moons of Jupiter. But for liberals, "expert" has come to mean far more than greater knowledge in a given area. It now means two additional things: One is that non-experts should defer to experts not only on matters of knowledge, but on matters of policy, as well. The second is that experts possess greater wisdom about life, not merely greater knowledge in their area of expertise. That is why liberals are far more likely to be impressed when a Nobel Prize winner in, let us say, physics signs an ad against war or against capital punishment. The liberal is bowled over by the title "Nobel laureate." The conservative is more likely to wonder why a Nobel laureate in physics has anything more meaningful to say about war than, let us say, a taxi driver. -- People who don't confront the greatest evils will confront far lesser ones. Most humans know the world is morally disordered -- and socially conscious humans therefore try to fight what they deem to be most responsible for that disorder. The Right tends to fight human evil such as communism and Islamic totalitarianism. The Left avoids confronting such evils and concentrates its attention instead on socioeconomic inequality, environmental problems and capitalism. Global warming meets all three of these criteria of evil. By burning fossil fuels, rich countries pollute more, the environment is being despoiled and big business increases its profits. -- The Left is far more likely to revere, even worship, nature. A threat to the environment is regarded by many on the Left as a threat to what is most sacred to them, and therefore deemed to be the greatest threat humanity faces. The cover of Vanity Fair's recent "Special Green Issue" declared: "A Graver Threat Than Terrorism: Global Warming." Conservatives, more concerned with human evil, hold the very opposite view: Islamic terror is a far graver threat than global warming. -- Leftists tend to fear dying more. That is one reason they are more exercised about our waging war against evil than about the evils committed by those we fight. The number of Iraqis and others Saddam Hussein murdered troubles the Left considerably less than even the remote possibility than they may one day die of global warming (or secondhand smoke). One day, our grandchildren may ask us what we did when Islamic fascism threatened the free world. Some of us will say we were preoccupied with fighting that threat wherever possible; others will be able to say they fought carbon dioxide emissions. One of us will look bad. |
||
JudgeHolden
Champion Joined: 16 Apr 2011 Status: Offline Points: 11716 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Not at all. I have no "pre-conceived beliefs". I am simply accepting the current scientific consensus. If that changes or proves to be wrong I'll happily change my mind. The science that is, not the interpretation of it through media outlets. Those scientists who have dissented are entitled to their view but they are in the significant minority.
And can you please link me to the science behind the 2083/4 figure.
|
||
Buckpasser
Champion Joined: 01 Aug 2008 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 1604 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I wouldn't know what Alan Jones opinion is on anything whale as I wouldn't pain myself to listen to any rhetoric he tries to pass of as fact. Tim Flannery made a fool of himself the moment he started talking climate change as he spouted popularist left wing propaganda not based in any basic facts.
|
||
JudgeHolden
Champion Joined: 16 Apr 2011 Status: Offline Points: 11716 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Not sure what that grab-bag of clumsy generalisations has to do with anything I've posted Shammy. For the record I don't consider my position left, right or anywhere else. The great shame of this issue is that extremists on both sides seem to be so categorise to it so. On that, at least, I agree with Buckpasser.
|
||
Buckpasser
Champion Joined: 01 Aug 2008 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 1604 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
The report is out in a couple of weeks JudgeHolden. I do not have a copy. I have excerpts from it, given in confidence as they are leaked. You will have to wait until the report is released to get a link to it. Interestingly though, after saying you have no preconceived ideas and you will change your mind happily, you then refer to the IPCC report and the scientists involved as 'dissentors', prior to knowing who they are or what they say. Strange for someone without preconceived views and willing to change position when the science does
|
||
Fiddlesticks
Champion Joined: 31 Dec 2012 Status: Online Points: 49810 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Very very naive to think humans have had zero impact on the earths atmosphere, then again we are discussing it with the forums biggest supporter of creationism... |
||
Panspermia.
|
||
JudgeHolden
Champion Joined: 16 Apr 2011 Status: Offline Points: 11716 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Again you misunderstand me. The "dissenters" are the people quoted in the article by Gay3. (Judith Curry, for example). Their opinions have been known for some time, and are outside the current consensus. I'm not referring to the IPCC report, which I'll judge for itself when released.
|
||
Buckpasser
Champion Joined: 01 Aug 2008 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 1604 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
What I do know to be in the IPCC report could cause a sceptic of human nature to believe that the modelling done, while initiated with the best of intentions, has been quantified in such a way as to guarantee profile and ongoing funding for projects to keep individual scientists employed and universities full. Of course no learned institution or someone with a science degree could possibly be accused of a vested interest could they?
|
||
Buckpasser
Champion Joined: 01 Aug 2008 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 1604 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
But what we are seeing JudgeHolden is that the current consensus, if not wrong, is seriously flawed. This is scientific facts. This new report, from what I read of it, shows this clearly. And it was always going to land that way if any person who educated themselves on the matter removed the sensationalist dogma from both ends of the spectrum. The middle ground is now, and shall be further in my opinion, seen as the reality.
I think the debate on both ends has done a global disservice. There are so many more pressing issues that need addressing that have been ignored as media space and resources are pumped into this issue. Pollution in general, erosion, urban planning etc are all, IMO, greater threats to the planet as we know it. Water, and not in the inane and illinformed debate like we have seen on the Murray Darling, is a much larger global issue. Hopefully this report will put some balance back into the debate. |
||
Whale
Champion Joined: 01 Jun 2009 Location: St Kilda Beach Status: Offline Points: 38719 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
|
|
I used to think you were a right leaning but sensible person, I now see yoyu are just another consevative extremist Shammy |
||
JudgeHolden
Champion Joined: 16 Apr 2011 Status: Offline Points: 11716 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Well if that's the case they should be exposed. Hopefully you'll be able to provide us with the particular institution, organisation or individuals involved. Wouldn't want to tar everyone with the same brush, would we?
|
||
JudgeHolden
Champion Joined: 16 Apr 2011 Status: Offline Points: 11716 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Sorry but I don't see that at all. Perhaps you can provide me with the actual science, linked, that undermines the current consensus.
|
||
Buckpasser
Champion Joined: 01 Aug 2008 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 1604 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Cardiff university, of course, was one institution who was severely questioned over their actions and motivations. Cannot vouch for the credentials, conservative or otherwise, of the journalists though.
|
||
Buckpasser
Champion Joined: 01 Aug 2008 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 1604 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
You keep asking for the science JudgeHolden and I keep supplying it. You have provided zero science to any question here. You have derided anyone who disagrees with you. You instantly assumed I was a 'sceptic' because I mentioned Lindzen because of your ingrained views. How about you produce some science?
|
||
Buckpasser
Champion Joined: 01 Aug 2008 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 1604 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
And you keep asking for a link. I cannot repeat myself anymore. The report you ask for a link to is written but will be released in two weeks. I cannot give a link to that report. I did give you a link to an article published today that discusses the leaked aspects of the report that I read, that quotes from it directly, yet you demand more. Wait two weeks. This is a report that is written by the peak body of the scientists you sprouted (without showing any current science to support your view) as guiding your opinion. I would suggest some canny research from you would give you the answers you want if your mind is truly open.
|
||
JudgeHolden
Champion Joined: 16 Apr 2011 Status: Offline Points: 11716 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
For the nth time in here:
Very comprehensive, all opinions linked and annotated in basic or intermediary detail.
|
||
Buckpasser
Champion Joined: 01 Aug 2008 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 1604 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
So a single source of info? No need to question, double check, ratify, self educate etc? What about the Indian scientist who admitted falsifying info on ice melt in the Himalayas , wasn't he a member of one of those organisations?
|
||
Buckpasser
Champion Joined: 01 Aug 2008 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 1604 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
|
||
Buckpasser
Champion Joined: 01 Aug 2008 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 1604 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
JudgeHolden, just wondering if you had a postion, not gleaned from the 97%, on the East Anglian and Penn State university investigation into manipulated climate change data. Again, I'm listing institutions and organisations as I do like to inform myself of facts rather than rely on organisations telling me what to think. |
||
JudgeHolden
Champion Joined: 16 Apr 2011 Status: Offline Points: 11716 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
It's a summation of the science, all referenced with source literature. And if you take the time to look around you'll find multiple contrary views examined and discussed. As well as some of the controversies. If you find this unconvincing we'll have to agree to disagree. As for your other point I'm not overly familiar with the particualr case, but in any area of scientific endeavour you're going to find self-interest, fraud and downright incompetence. That doesn't mean I'm throwing the baby out with the bath water. I'm prepared to assume the overwhelming majority of scientists choose to act in good faith. |
||
Buckpasser
Champion Joined: 01 Aug 2008 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 1604 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
To summarise, the head of the IPCC when Copenhagan occurred and the 2007 report was released (the most controversial) was a guy called raj Pachauri. He had an employee called Dr Sayed Hassain who claimed that all Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035. Glacial melt supplies 40% of the worlds population with water. This allowed TERI, who Pachauri controlled to get a 500k grant from Carnegie plus part of a 3 million euro grant as well. He took these findings to Copenhagan knowing they were wrong, recieved a Nobel Peace Prize beside Al Gore knowing it was wrong and published the most controversial climate change report knowing it was wrong. He is not only one of the 97% but was the chairman of the peak industry body and the public face. These results, never true or researched, we're published on the very website you put forward as an unquestioned source of information. Not saying it is not a source of good information, just that it should be looked at with an scientific approach of sceptasism.
|
||
Bagman
Champion Joined: 20 Feb 2007 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 4082 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Go to the NASA http://climate.nasa.gov/ site and get some answers. These guys are funded by the USA Govt so if they say its a happening who am I to dispute them or the other 97% of CLIMATE SCIENTISTS in agreement. Now its important to note the caps lock, as a multitude of 'scientists', usually in the employ of energy companies are spruiking as well.
The conspiracy theorists are down to name calling and attacking the man not the ball. The big thing with conspiracy is 99% of them have a shadowy figure who will gain from it. With climate change there is none. There is no mega solar operator, wave generator, thermal or wind generation company waiting to swoop when we all fall for the scam. It reminds me of the hole in the Ozone layer. Our best and brightest examined the issue and came back with a solution to abate the problem, get rid of CFC'. DuPont, the main CFC manufacturer, took out full page ads stating their is no proof, scientists are tree huggers etc etc. Did they win out or did we take notice of the pro's and change? |
||
I don't have one
|
||
BROOKE
Champion Joined: 07 Mar 2007 Status: Offline Points: 12633 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Global Warming = Biggest Conspiracy Theory of the past 50 years.
|
||
Bagman
Champion Joined: 20 Feb 2007 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 4082 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Then who is the winner?? Wheres the smoking guy in the corner?? Wheres the alternative energy provider and his advertising blitz?? Where Brooke??
Where?? A conspiracy is when two parties collude to something harmful or illegal. You cannot have a conspiracy without a winner. In this case the winner is ???????? Please no more conspiracy claims , just back up your argument with FACTS. Its the least you can do when scientists have put their credibility on the line. Remember scientists Brooke?? |
||
I don't have one
|
||
subastral
Champion Joined: 28 Jul 2011 Location: Melbourne Status: Offline Points: 34887 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
You do realise we identified the problem, and stopped using CFC's, don't you? |
||
Bagman
Champion Joined: 20 Feb 2007 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 4082 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I'll put you in touch with some of the greatest supporters ,and starters , of conspiracy theorys...
http://english.pravda.ru/search/?cx=partner-pub-9823569451097165%3A3289353802&cof=FORID%3A10&ie=UTF-8&q=global+warming&sa=Submit+Query&siteurl=english.pravda.ru%2F&ref=lavasoft.blekko.com%2Fws%2Fpravda&ss=3088j999898j14 .they've got it all and soon enough you will see the only person being fooled is you. |
||
I don't have one
|
||
subastral
Champion Joined: 28 Jul 2011 Location: Melbourne Status: Offline Points: 34887 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Isn't it better to be doing something and later be proven wrong, rather than do absolutely nothing and later be proven that it's real?? I fail to see any negative points about being proactive. We make big business and governments accountable for their actions. Where is the problem??
|
||
Bagman
Champion Joined: 20 Feb 2007 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 4082 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Subastral, why argue with someone who cannot tell the difference between a computer programmer and a scientist? Yes we got rid of CFC's and it worked!
Simple solution to an elegant problem. Drama is the deniers have reached the end of there spin cycle and are out of ideas so they try and tell us things like the Ozone and Y2K are done by the same think tank. |
||
I don't have one
|
||
Bagman
Champion Joined: 20 Feb 2007 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 4082 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Ahh, excellent point.
The result would be an abundance of alternate energy sources assets. That's all..... jobs, production, trades etc etc |
||
I don't have one
|
||
Post Reply | Page <1 34567 538> |
Tweet |
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |