Quote :

"“On the topic of global climate change, communication with the public has become seriously hampered during the past few years for employees of government agencies such as NASA, NOAA and EPA. I know that such interference with and misuse of the scientific process is occurring now to a degree unprecedented in my scientific lifetime. I speak from a position of having tried hard to work with and advise the current administration on matters relating to climate change. I find a willingness to listen only to those portions of scientific results that fit predetermined inflexible positions.This, I believe, is a recipe for environmental disasters.”"

Dr. James Hansen. “Dangerous Anthropogenic
Interference: A Discussion of Humanity’s
Faustian Climate Bargain and the Payments
Coming Due.” Presentation given at the
Distinguished Public Lecture Series at the
Department of Physics and Astronomy,
University of Iowa, on October 26, 2004.

[Edited on March 13, 2007 at 1:11 PM. Reason : formatting]

3/13/2007 1:10:44 PM

^^ OH NOES! The New York Times has sold out to Bush's evil Exxon people!

3/13/2007 10:17:42 PM

a few dollars can make anything go away...or at least make people pretend.

3/14/2007 12:46:19 AM

So what's the motivation for fabricating or exaggerating this issue?

Why am I to believe that so many very smart scientists are purposefully misinforming me?

(I'm not talking about the first post. These are just general questions.)

3/14/2007 1:19:21 AM

So that the big evil liberal scientists and professors can get more grant money to fund their hairbrained schemes and research but it's totally cool if corporations do it in the name of making a buck.

3/14/2007 4:26:31 AM

Quote :

"So what's the motivation for fabricating or exaggerating this issue? Why am I to believe that so many very smart scientists are purposefully misinforming me? "

Funding, political pressure, social pressure etc. The same reasons people claim that people who disagree with the current theory are lying.

Which do you think in the current political cliamate would get more funding:

Study of the Migration of the Mexican Four Eyed Squid Cow

or

Study of the Detrimental Effects of Global Warming on the Migration of the Mexican Four Eyed Squid Cow

Some of it is just simple desire to have funding availible in general. If all you ever heard was "things are going great, no need for panic or worry" how much funding do you think would be availible? The only time the government spends REAL money on research is when there is a Problem™.

And yes, if your public funding for studying cliamate change will dry up for bucking the current theories on global warming and the only other way to get funding for it is through private ventures with a vested interest (like suprise, oil companies), which will land you the label of corporate stooge, you better believe that you will tow the party line to keep your funding. How many regular joes tow the company line to keep their jobs? Why do you assume that scientists are any more noble?

There is a lot of money to be made from global warming (just as there is a lot of money invested in keeping things exactly the way they are now). Yes, oil companies have a vested interest in keeping things as they are currently, but you would be a fool to think that there are no private companies with an interest in seeing things change or that oil companies are only paying scientists to push an agenda. Any smart company is already looking at what's going on, how soon things will need to change and what they can do to be there when it happens (why else would BP be investing in solar energy?).

3/14/2007 7:28:22 AM

Quote :

"So what's the motivation for fabricating or exaggerating this issue?"

To get the public's attention, of course. The same thing happened to a lesser extent with the Y2K bug, bird flu, etc. The "experts" on global warming are typically the ones that scream the loudest and predict the most gloom and doom.

3/14/2007 9:32:04 AM

Y2K was supposed to fuck up our entire economy, shut down power grids, water mains, etc...everybody had to pay for computer upgrades and whatnot...and then the new year came and nothing happened

Quote :

"I find a willingness to listen only to those portions of scientific results that fit predetermined inflexible positions"

Is that kind of like how if someone dares to question the certainty of anthropmorphic catastrophic climate change nobody is really willing to listen to them?

3/14/2007 10:23:04 AM

I might as well quote Al Gore and James Hansen as to why scientists would want to exaggerate the harmful effects of global warming:

Al Gore, in Grist Magazine:

Quote :

"I believe it is appropriate to have an overrepresentation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience."

Dr. James Hansen, in Natural Science:

Quote :

"Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decisionmakers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue."

Stephen Schnieder, in Discover Magazine:

Quote :

" Stanford's Stephen Schneider, interviewed by Jonathan Schell in Discover magazine later that year, spoke of the need to "capture the public's imagination." Scientists would have to "offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. ... Each of us has to decide what is the right balance between being effective and being honest.""

[Edited on March 14, 2007 at 10:41 AM. Reason : 2]

3/14/2007 10:40:13 AM

^

3/14/2007 10:49:07 AM

Yeah, I've thought of and heard all those reasons before, guys. Y'all are still working with the same ole shit, huh?

3/14/2007 1:49:45 PM

Quote :

"Each of us has to decide what is the right balance between being effective and being honest."

Wow.

That's pretty blunt.

3/14/2007 1:52:16 PM

Yeah, but all those quotes are worthless.

Exaggerating the situation because they believe they're right and are trying to draw attention to the issue isn't what I was looking for. That kinda thing I'm on board with.

3/14/2007 1:57:46 PM

ahahahaha

Sure. It's ok to exaggerate as long as you think it's for a good cause.

Too bad it kills their credibility and makes them look like alarmists.

The IPCC's projections for temperature and sea levels rising are a damn joke, even Dr. Hansen has said as much.

Anti-abortion crusaders exaggerate the health risks associated with abortions because they believe they are right. Are you on board with that?

[Edited on March 14, 2007 at 2:13 PM. Reason : 2]

3/14/2007 2:06:17 PM

Quote :

"So that the big evil liberal scientists and professors can get more grant money to fund their hairbrained schemes and research but it's totally cool if corporations do it in the name of making a buck."

I got news for you buddy. the "big evil corporations" are going to make a ton of money regardless, if not more if we adopted Kyoto-like regs. FYI one of the BIGGEST US proponents of the Kyoto Protocal was an energy company called Enron. You might have heard of it.

Ahhhh, the sea level. The sea level has been rising and falling forever, depending on the ice age cycle. Its currently been rising (ever so slightly) for over a hundred years now. Definitely cause for alarm.

3/14/2007 2:26:46 PM

Obvious, any exaggeration whatever proves global warming is completely bogus.

I'm gonna go release some carbon into the atmosphere RIGHT NOW.

3/14/2007 2:29:19 PM

^you mean like...go outside and breathe? that will release some co2

Quote :

"Y'all are still working with the same ole shit, huh?"

all the idiot alarmists still ignore it!

3/14/2007 2:37:02 PM

Quote :

"Y2K was supposed to fuck up our entire economy, shut down power grids, water mains, etc...everybody had to pay for computer upgrades and whatnot...and then the new year came and nothing happened"

Thats because people actually did something about it.

The global warming debate is all just pissing in the wind really. As China, India, and the rest of Asia come online as first-world nations in the next 50 years, no amount of cutting back on emissions in the United States will offset the impact of billions of new consumers. Like it or not, thats just the way it is.

3/14/2007 2:51:31 PM

Quote :

"Thats because people actually did something about it."

you mean like buy Norton 2000 and change some source codes to support 4 digit dates? The comparison is that the consensus was that all hell was going to break lose and it turns out it was just a lot of alarmists spreading the worst case scenario as the most likely scenario

course its also a little easier to adapt a more efficient programming style when it comes to time and date stamps than it is to revamp our entire transportation industry

3/14/2007 2:54:12 PM

This shit is still going on?

3/14/2007 2:55:19 PM

Quote :

"Obvious, any exaggeration whatever proves global warming is completely bogus."

How many damn times does this have to be stated. NOBODY IN HERE IS SAYING THAT GLOBAL WARMING DOESN'T EXIST AND ISN'T TAKING PLACE.

3/14/2007 2:57:37 PM

^^wow you sure are observant for a bald man...your understanding of the time and date is unheard of

^oh i assure you it will have to be stated many many many more times...because to them, if you're not completely convinced that humans are causing devastating climate changes, then the only other option is that you are completely convinced that global warming is a total myth

[Edited on March 14, 2007 at 2:59 PM. Reason : .]

3/14/2007 2:59:05 PM

Quote :

"ahahahaha Sure. It's ok to exaggerate as long as you think it's for a good cause. Too bad it kills their credibility and makes them look like alarmists. The IPCC's projections for temperature and sea levels rising are a damn joke, even Dr. Hansen has said as much. Anti-abortion crusaders exaggerate the health risks associated with abortions because they believe they are right. Are you on board with that?"

You can't compare abortion to global warming. Abortion is a moral issue that affects individuals. Global warming will eventually affect all of us.

You mentioned the bird flu issue, and I believe they have to exaggerate its consequences to get people to act right if and when the time comes so we can actually have a chance to weather that storm. Exaggerations about abortions are about getting an individual to act right in some moral sense to decrease overall sin levels or some shit.

3/14/2007 3:10:17 PM

Quote :

"Global warming will eventually affect all of us"

bullshit

total bullshit statement

3/14/2007 3:15:38 PM

Quote :

"^you mean like...go outside and breathe? that will release some co2"

I ain't some corporate lapdog capitalist pig nazi, Twista. I don't breathe. Why do you hate Mother Earth?

Quote :

"NOBODY IN HERE IS SAYING THAT GLOBAL WARMING DOESN'T EXIST AND ISN'T TAKING PLACE."

You're just saying it doesn't matter, right?

Quote :

"because to them, if you're not completely convinced that humans are causing devastating climate changes, then the only other option is that you are completely convinced that global warming is a total myth"

Eh, I don't really believe the more alarmist stuff. I've always found the global warming = t3h killer hurrahkanes! thing somewhat dubious. I rolled my eyes when I first saw the poster for Gore's movie.

But yes, those should be the only two options.

3/14/2007 3:20:24 PM

^^By "all of us," I meant humanity. Maybe not all of us, as in you and I.

Either way, there's no point in me arguing it with you. Because you're the dumbass with his fingers in his ears going LALALALALALALALALALALA. There's no point in trying to talk to you. Eventually the rest of us are going to have to trample you fuckers and do what's needed without your asses.

And why you insist on being the LALALALALALALALALALA guy is anybody's guess.

[Edited on March 14, 2007 at 3:23 PM. Reason : sss]

3/14/2007 3:22:39 PM

^its a shame that you dont realize that you are actually the one with your fingers in your ears

because you are one of the ones who has already made up her mind about the issue...people like me...i'm undecided...i haven't gotten enough evidence to make me strongly believe that humans are causing catastrophic global warming...i still openminded...I am open to new research and data...you however already have your mind made up, and hence your fingers in your ears

if we made this analagous to religion, I am an agnostic on the issue...you are an evangelical saying God's return is imminent and will definitely affect all of us...by the same analogy, you also imply that no agnostics even exist...theist or atheist, thats your only two choices...its like youre doing the LALALALALA to anybody who says "how do we know that god exists?"

[Edited on March 14, 2007 at 3:27 PM. Reason : .]

3/14/2007 3:25:03 PM

No, if we made this analogous to religion, you're an agnostic because you slept in the morning that God came down and revealed himself to the rest of us.

I think we have enough evidence to go ahead and start making some simple lifestyle changes. You're still "openminded" (read: closed-minded to making any changes).

3/14/2007 3:30:44 PM

call it whatever you want...the FACT is, you're absolutely positive that we are destroying the planet...maybe you could tell me why? Why are you so convinced? Maybe you can help me understand since I haven't made up my mind yet

Quote :

"God came down and revealed himself to the rest of us."

in the form of An Inconvenient Truth?

[Edited on March 14, 2007 at 3:38 PM. Reason : .]

3/14/2007 3:33:14 PM

Quote :

"I think we have enough evidence a long way to go before financial pressure will force us to go ahead and start making some simple lifestyle changes."

There, I fixed it for you. Not saying I disagree, just looking at the reality of the situatoin.

3/14/2007 3:44:46 PM

Technolgoy will save us. Maybe not the Third World, but we Americans should do okay.

3/14/2007 3:55:38 PM

Quote :

"Exaggerating the situation because they believe they're right and are trying to draw attention to the issue isn't what I was looking for. That kinda thing I'm on board with."

The current president is also quite fond of this tactic.

3/14/2007 5:28:46 PM

Quote :

"Quote : "NOBODY IN HERE IS SAYING THAT GLOBAL WARMING DOESN'T EXIST AND ISN'T TAKING PLACE." You're just saying it doesn't matter, right?"

How freakin dense are you?! No, thats not it. The Earth's climate has fluctuated since the beginning of time, often much quicker than now (hell, just look at climate date from the 1930s). So do I think big bad mankind is responsible? NO, and there's tons of evidence behind that.

BTW, does it bother anyone anyone that a skeptic scientist of manmade global warming has received several death threats after appearing on Hannity and Colmes last week?

3/14/2007 8:04:23 PM

Quote :

"BTW, does it bother anyone anyone that a skeptic scientist of manmade global warming has received several death threats after appearing on Hannity and Colmes last week?"

No, just you.

3/14/2007 8:32:29 PM

so the truth comes out, leftists have no problem threatening the lives of others. Guess its not much of a shock really.

3/14/2007 8:51:00 PM

Quote :

"How freakin dense are you?!"

Quote :

"So do I think big bad mankind is responsible? NO, and there's tons of evidence behind that."

There's plenty of evidence that greenhouse gases do have an effect.

3/14/2007 8:57:16 PM

and i've never said that greenhouse gases have nothing to do with the warming of the globe...how many times are you gonna run around in circles.

3/14/2007 10:22:32 PM

Quote :

". . .or some shit."

BridgetSPK

Right you are.

3/14/2007 10:28:37 PM

^^ Well, if we're putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and that's having an effect...

3/14/2007 10:41:39 PM

yes theres a natural cycle but we're constantly converting stuff that wouldn't be co2 and adding it the atmosphere and that cycle. do that math.

its like one of those waterfall things. they have a set amount of water in them and some of it is always falling some is int he tubes and some is in the pool. if you start pouring extra water in there its only going to increase the amount of water in the fountain. sounds simple but people still pretend to not understand.

3/14/2007 11:32:08 PM

The Earth has been warming at a fairly constant rate of .17 degrees Celsius per decade over the last half century. So why the fuck does the IPCC predict that temperature will go up as much as 5.8 degrees Celsius by 2100? That would require warming more than 3 times faster than what we've seen over the past 50 years. And don't get me started on the "rising sea levels" threat. For one thing, it's not a threat at all. For another, sea levels have only risen a couple inches on average over the last decade. Now all the sudden they are supposed to rise several feet by 2100? Thats a goddamn joke if I ever heard one.

The panel's projections are a joke, much like the CIA's projections of the millions of barrels of biological and chemical weapons that Saddam had stockpiled. Nevertheless, these public announcements get tools like Aristotle worked up in a lather. It's funny to watch.


[Edited on March 14, 2007 at 11:55 PM. Reason : 2]

3/14/2007 11:49:29 PM

$10 says you dont know enough about their actual recomendations or methodology

no one on TWW has the scientific or intellectual capacity to dispell a complex,global problem, especially without proposing their own statisitcal model that negates it

why can't you just admit you don't know, and your assumptions are based on your own ideological predispositions and not on fact or an understandinding of the theories presented

[Edited on March 14, 2007 at 11:57 PM. Reason : .]

3/14/2007 11:56:42 PM

C'mon, don't act like they had any statistical models or real methodology behind their projections. They were exaggerating the threat for shock value. Several climatologists have admitted this. Why can't you accept it?

Fuck, just read what your buddy Dr James Hansen had to say about the projections the IPCC came up with. I'm sure you'll admit that he's plenty qualified to comment on the issue.

Quote :

"Are the IPCC scenarios necessary or even plausible? There are reasons to believe that the IPCC scenarios are unduly pessimistic. First, they ignore changes in emissions, some already underway, due to concerns about global warming. Second, they assume that true air pollution will continue to get worse, with O3 and CH4 and black carbon all greater in 2050 than in 2000. Third, they give short shrift to technology advances that can reduce emissions in the next 50 years… [The] “current trends” growth rate of climate forcings…is at the low end [emphasis added] of the IPCC range of 2-4W/m2 [watts per square meter] The IPCC scenario of 4 W/m2 requires a 4% per year exponential growth rate of CO2 emissions for 50 years and large growth of air pollution. The 4 W/m2 scenario yields dramatic climate change for the media to fixate upon, but it is implausible. "

http://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-16/ns_jeh.html

[Edited on March 15, 2007 at 12:06 AM. Reason : 2]

3/15/2007 12:00:53 AM

Even if they erred on the side of caution in their estimates, what difference would that make?

If you ask for less than you want, chances are you won't receive what you need.

3/15/2007 12:23:51 AM

Quote :

"so the truth comes out, leftists have no problem threatening the lives of others. Guess its not much of a shock really."

If you truely believe this then you are as hopeless as your posts show you to be.

3/15/2007 1:03:47 AM

have you ever heard of a domino effect? or something incrasing exponentially?

Its based on some basic chemical principles

Images show the ice melting more and more each year. The longer ice melts the faster is melts (especially with temp rising as well). also the more the ice melts the more the water rises and the more open land/ocean. ice reflects light and solar radiation much more than what it leaves behind.

Get ready to tell your kids (grandkids)` santa lives on a boat

[Edited on March 15, 2007 at 1:06 AM. Reason : prolly grandkids]


these scientists aren't going to make any money from everybody lowering co2 emmissions. thats all they want you to do.

[Edited on March 15, 2007 at 1:08 AM. Reason : so don't compare it to iraq or people who disprove global warming to save thier company money]

3/15/2007 1:06:13 AM

Quote :

"or something increasing exponentially?"

you hit it on the head

[Edited on March 15, 2007 at 1:26 AM. Reason : .]

3/15/2007 1:15:44 AM

prove it

oh thats right...you cant

yet without any proof i'm supposed to just blindly believe that us lowly humans are ourselves destroying a 4 billion year old planet

whats that? why didnt i say 6,000 years? wait youre shocked that there are people who question anthro climate change who arent stupid evangelicals?

Its just kind of funny...humans might be fucking up the planet...they might not...I don't know and neither does anyone else...yet for some reason they think they do know....but they don't...I actually realize that none of us know, but I'm the dumbass for realizing limitations of science?

3/15/2007 10:44:54 AM

^the planet won't be permanently fucked up, just enough to rid itself of the parasites.

3/15/2007 11:08:58 AM

Quote :

"but they don't..."

yes they do.

3/15/2007 11:26:34 AM