global warming fraud "tricks" exposed by hackers

[Valnorran]

Originally Posted by Infinite Grey

I guess I'm going to have to play science teacher again, right?

Sure. Just like when we discuss the Constitution and I have to play history and political science teacher, only I can manage it without smarmy remarks. Earlier I'd asked if expecting the same from you was asking too much. Apparently it is.

The study of climate has been around a lot longer than forty years Val,

Except that is not what I said. I said the study of global climate change has been around for about forty years. Prior to that the majority of climate study was focused on local regions. http://www.aip.org/history/climate/climogy.htm

Let's see... because we can isolate past and possible natural causes of a rapid climate change

All of them? And we can say this without any doubt? We know with absolute certainty that we have taken into account every single factor and variable?

Such as?

Well, Iggy, if they are unknown it's kind of hard to itemize them, isn't it?

Proof that I was right in my assessment of you earlier - this has been explained, yet you continue as if it has not.

Proof that you are exceptionaly careless in your reading. If you'd actually paid attention to my little intro, you'd know what my intentions here are. I made them quite clear.

-face palm- the over all global mean temperature has risen and as you yourself have said, our climate and weather is complex - if you are truly interested in answering those questions all you have to do is look through the articles of a several Peer reviewed journals, (most are searchable by key words) and find the answers. I am not prepared to answer each individually...

In other words, you don't know, either.

I really do not care enough about your opinion to invest that much time in something you could do yourself.

And yet, you keep responding.

But I suspect you won't do it, as you're not really looking for answers, are you.

Okay, just what is your problem? I've made my intentions clear. That was the one and only purpose of my last post. It meant exactly what it said. If I wasn't looking for answers I wouldn't bother asking questions. You, on the other hand, seem quite reluctant to provide any good answers. The main thrust of your replies has been "look it up yourself" without bothering to provide a link or suggesting some journal titles or keywords. I ask simple questions and you respond with hostility. When someone is hostile to questions, it's generally a sign of uncertainty; he's not sure, he just might be wrong. Responding with personal attacks, such as insinuating I'm not really doing what I say I'm doing or calling me a liar or ranting about my ignorance, are also indicators of uncertainty.

That is either a gross example of misinformation or you're a bold faced lair. I don't really care which.

Here we go with the name calling. It happens every time we try to discuss something. I bring up a point, you call me a liar.
H. Kieffer, et al., 2000, "New eyes in the sky measure glaciers and ice sheets," EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Union 81: 265, 270-1
R.J. Braithwaite and Y. Zhang, "Relationship between interannual variability of glacier mass balance and climate," Journal of Glaciology 45 (2000): 456-62.

But you'll write these guys off as hacks, and consider your source - the UN - more reliable than a couple of scientific journals you otherwise revere. I'm sure the American Geophysical Union and the Journal of Glaciology are grossly misinformed and/or liars. You undoubtedly know more than they do.

I'm not going to bother going into sea level changes

Why not? Have you no rebuttals?

And a little actual research would have answered all those questions.

Okay, I addressed this in a post that you completely ignored, so let's try again.

There's something here you don't seem to understand, and that's the fact that not everybody is as into this topic as you are. Not everybody reads scientific journals for fun. Not everybody has global warming as their pet topic. Expecting them to know all about it right off the tops of their heads is unrealistic. I have my pet topics, but I understand not everyone is as interested in it as I am, so I have no objections to explaining things to others who don't have my familiarity with it. When it comes to Constitutional rights our positions are reversed, yet I've never ranted about how ignorant you are of American political philosophy. I've tried to explain it to the best of my ability. Am I expecting too much from you in thinking you could return the courtesy? As a proponent of global warming and science, I should think you'd welcome the opportunity to educate others. One of my pet topics is gun control, but I understand not everyone is as interested in it as I am, so I'll have to explain things to them, things that to me are common knowledge, yet I never find aggravation in the chance to inform someone about the topic. The fact that explaining your position causes you such aggravation says a lot. I hope you never go into the teaching profession.

That's a political problem, and has no bearing on whether or not climate change is sourced in human activity.

Great, but that wasn't the point. The point was looking at the issue of global warming as a whole, and this is a hugely significant part of that. Let's get out of the theory for a while and consider the practical applications of this: if we inact plans to change the climate, the politicians will be in charge. Think about that.

No. It should be a collective effort based on science, not individual countries acting alone.

It should be, but it won't. In order for it to happen, it will have to be overseen by someone with legal authority. In other words, governments.

There is quite a simple way to avoid the politicized versions of events... go straight to the source.

One of the main sources is currently under suspicion of cooking their data.

errr no. If a scientist that is funded by group that has something to gain by not proceeding with changes, is speaking as an expert but not through the peer review, it's a safe bet that there is a conflict of interest.

And if a scientist that is funded by group that has something to gain by proceeding with changes, is speaking as an expert but not through the peer review, it's a safe bet that there is a conflict of interest.

Real jobs eh? Well now you just revealed what you think of scientists didn't you. What do you do Val?

No I didn't. Rather, you just revealed (again) what a careless reader you are. What I said was, "Everyone's salaries are paid by someone, and environmental groups are no different. If the environment is saved, they can kiss those donations good-bye and start looking for real jobs." Clearly, I was referring to the environmentalist groups, not the scientists.

CONSPIRACY! Not everyone thinks like you, and very few people become scientists for the money. We have the scientific method that all but literally castrates scientists that publish works that are made with such an agenda.

The point wasn't conspiracy. The point was scientists are just as human as anyone else, scientific method or no.

Environmental scientists will never go out of business and need "a real job" as long as there is an environment... whether or not global warming is real or not. So yeah... how about you go back to your "real job" and leave the thinking to scientists, you ain't very good at it anyway.

Wow. So you can call me stupid and a liar, then you can misinterpret a clearly expressed idea and be outraged by it.

Yet you side with people like Rush Limbaugh, Tim Ball, Alex Jones, O'Reilly and like? I'm sorry, nutjob to scientist ratio, the denailists a swamped with conspiracy theorist, religious bigots, assholes, and the out and out insane. It seems your idealogical motivations allow you to ignore the nutters on your side and focus on the minority of crazy people on the rational side.

On my side? You know, it's beginning to look like you're not simply missing points, you're deliberately dodging them. I've said this several times in this thread, but I'll try this again: I never said global warming was not happening. Therefore, I am not a denialist. I have no "side." For a guy who says I'm not good at thinking you show an extraordinary ability to misinterpret simple statements.

Again you are showing your complete ignorance of science and the scientific method... how do you think it works? Some random guy comes up with an idea and everyone just jumps on the bandwagon? I am so sick of repeating this to you and others of your elk... My assessment was indeed correct.

A careless writer in addition to a careless reader. I have no "elk." Before questioning other people's thinking ability, you might want to make sure you correctly spelled a three letter word. If you can't catch such simple mistakes as this, why should I take your word on other matters?

Oh, I was wondering when you would jump on Memnoch's band wagon. I am very tempted to do a thread comparing methods and arguments of climate change denalists to those of creationists... it's amusing how similar the groups are.

Since I'm not a denialist, I'm not sure why you'd bother, but whatever makes your evening more enjoyable. Still, I can't help noticing that your devotion to science rivals the devotion of the most fervent churchgoer, you divide people into two simple groups - believers and deniers, us and them - even when a person doesn't fit either group, and your hostility and contempt for anyone questioning you bears more than a passing resemblence to the behavior of religious fundamentalists.

This is because you are lying. You are not trying to make sense of anything. You have repeatedly ignored evidence, explanations, and have shown an absolute contempt for science and scientists. What you are are after is support for your own beliefs and ideologies, without really give a rats ass about reality.



Yeah, as I explain earlier - you either ask questions that have been answered, ask fundamentally stupid question and have a disregard for the methods of understanding the issue... why do you think climate realists get frustrated with you?
2> If you were honest in your questions, people would be more likely to answer your questions.

All right, before we go any further, if you think I'm a liar, have the decency to back it up. Show specifically where I lied and what I lied about. The only one to answer some of my questions in this thread has been you, and you're pissed because I didn't just take your word for it. In fact, it was when I presented sources that didn't support you that you started calling me a liar. It's painfully obvious you've got some personal stake in this. Sorry, Iggy, but I'm not just going to take your word for it, especially if I find a source that contradicts you. Given the carelessness with which you've read my posts, I can only imagine you've been equally careless in reading scientific journals. You keep responding to me as if I'm a global warming denialist, yet I've repeatedly made it clear I'm not. You got outraged at me for saying scientists didn't have real jobs when that is not what I said. If you so easily misinterpret something written this simply, I can only imagine how you interpret scholarly writing. The evidence suggests that when you read something, you see only what you want to see. Moreover, the mispellings in your posts are indicative of further carelessness. If you can't compose a few sentences without them being riddled with errors, how do you presume to have such superior thought processes to others? So, no, I'm not just going to take you at your word. The sheer contempt you show for someone asking questions is, I think, very telling. Now, if you think I'm lying, present evidence supporting it. Otherwise, knock off the ad hominem shit. If you don't have the evidence, piss off.

[Infinite Grey]

Originally Posted by Valnorran

Well, Iggy, if they are unknown it's kind of hard to itemize them, isn't it?
Proof that you are exceptionaly careless in your reading. If you'd actually paid attention to my little intro, you'd know what my intentions here are. I made them quite clear.




Okay, just what is your problem? I've made my intentions clear. That was the one and only purpose of my last post. It meant exactly what it said. If I wasn't looking for answers I wouldn't bother asking questions. You, on the other hand, seem quite reluctant to provide any good answers. The main thrust of your replies has been "look it up yourself" without bothering to provide a link or suggesting some journal titles or keywords. I ask simple questions and you respond with hostility. When someone is hostile to questions, it's generally a sign of uncertainty; he's not sure, he just might be wrong. Responding with personal attacks, such as insinuating I'm not really doing what I say I'm doing or calling me a liar or ranting about my ignorance, are also indicators of uncertainty.

There's something here you don't seem to understand, and that's the fact that not everybody is as into this topic as you are. Not everybody reads scientific journals for fun. Not everybody has global warming as their pet topic. Expecting them to know all about it right off the tops of their heads is unrealistic. I have my pet topics, but I understand not everyone is as interested in it as I am, so I have no objections to explaining things to others who don't have my familiarity with it. When it comes to Constitutional rights our positions are reversed, yet I've never ranted about how ignorant you are of American political philosophy. I've tried to explain it to the best of my ability. Am I expecting too much from you in thinking you could return the courtesy? As a proponent of global warming and science, I should think you'd welcome the opportunity to educate others. One of my pet topics is gun control, but I understand not everyone is as interested in it as I am, so I'll have to explain things to them, things that to me are common knowledge, yet I never find aggravation in the chance to inform someone about the topic. The fact that explaining your position causes you such aggravation says a lot. I hope you never go into the teaching profession.

Great, but that wasn't the point. The point was looking at the issue of global warming as a whole, and this is a hugely significant part of that. Let's get out of the theory for a while and consider the practical applications of this: if we inact plans to change the climate, the politicians will be in charge. Think about that.

It should be, but it won't. In order for it to happen, it will have to be overseen by someone with legal authority. In other words, governments.

One of the main sources is currently under suspicion of cooking their data.

And if a scientist that is funded by group that has something to gain by proceeding with changes, is speaking as an expert but not through the peer review, it's a safe bet that there is a conflict of interest.

No I didn't. Rather, you just revealed (again) what a careless reader you are. What I said was, "Everyone's salaries are paid by someone, and environmental groups are no different. If the environment is saved, they can kiss those donations good-bye and start looking for real jobs." Clearly, I was referring to the environmentalist groups, not the scientists.

The point wasn't conspiracy. The point was scientists are just as human as anyone else, scientific method or no.

Wow. So you can call me stupid and a liar, then you can misinterpret a clearly expressed idea and be outraged by it.

On my side? You know, it's beginning to look like you're not simply missing points, you're deliberately dodging them. I've said this several times in this thread, but I'll try this again: I never said global warming was not happening. Therefore, I am not a denialist. I have no "side." For a guy who says I'm not good at thinking you show an extraordinary ability to misinterpret simple statements.

A careless writer in addition to a careless reader. I have no "elk." Before questioning other people's thinking ability, you might want to make sure you correctly spelled a three letter word. If you can't catch such simple mistakes as this, why should I take your word on other matters?

Since I'm not a denialist, I'm not sure why you'd bother, but whatever makes your evening more enjoyable. Still, I can't help noticing that your devotion to science rivals the devotion of the most fervent churchgoer, you divide people into two simple groups - believers and deniers, us and them - even when a person doesn't fit either group, and your hostility and contempt for anyone questioning you bears more than a passing resemblence to the behavior of religious fundamentalists.

All right, before we go any further, if you think I'm a liar, have the decency to back it up. Show specifically where I lied and what I lied about. The only one to answer some of my questions in this thread has been you, and you're pissed because I didn't just take your word for it. In fact, it was when I presented sources that didn't support you that you started calling me a liar. It's painfully obvious you've got some personal stake in this. Sorry, Iggy, but I'm not just going to take your word for it, especially if I find a source that contradicts you. Given the carelessness with which you've read my posts, I can only imagine you've been equally careless in reading scientific journals. You keep responding to me as if I'm a global warming denialist, yet I've repeatedly made it clear I'm not. You got outraged at me for saying scientists didn't have real jobs when that is not what I said. If you so easily misinterpret something written this simply, I can only imagine how you interpret scholarly writing. The evidence suggests that when you read something, you see only what you want to see. Moreover, the mispellings in your posts are indicative of further carelessness. If you can't compose a few sentences without them being riddled with errors, how do you presume to have such superior thought processes to others? So, no, I'm not just going to take you at your word. The sheer contempt you show for someone asking questions is, I think, very telling. Now, if you think I'm lying, present evidence supporting it. Otherwise, knock off the ad hominem shit. If you don't have the evidence, piss off.

1> Your intentions are clear in the information you repeatedly ignore, and the way you cherry pick sources.

2> I've never asked you to take my word for it, I directed you to read the scientific literature which contains everything you need to know. Here's a link to get you started Nature arguably the most prestigious and reliable peer review there is. (The search returned 13,276 articles for the keywords: climate change - and this is but one Peer reviewed journal, they are not hiding shit)

3> Yeah I used ad hominem, but that only matter if that's the only argument I bring to the table, which it isn't.

4> I'm done debating this with you until you actually read become informed on what the science actually says, instead of combing the internet for sources that agree with your presupposed positions.

[Valnorran]

Originally Posted by Infinite Grey

1> Your intentions are clear in the information you repeatedly ignore, and the way you cherry pick sources.

Those were sources used to show where I got my questions and that there is some debate, not sources meant to to support a contention that there is no global warming.

2> I've never asked you to take my word for it, I directed you to read the scientific literature which contains everything you need to know.

And when I found a source that said otherwise, you got pissed.

3> Yeah I used ad hominem, but that only matter if that's the only argument I bring to the table, which it isn't.

It's a symptom that one's argument is on shakey ground.

4> I'm done debating this with you until you actually read become informed on what the science actually says, instead of combing the internet for sources that agree with your presupposed positions.

This isn't even a debate. My purpose was to ask questions in an attempt to find things out, which would naturally lead to other questions. Someone presents evidence, and if I find evidence that contradicts it, I present it and ask, "What about this?" Again, those were sources that generated my questions and presented a different view, not supported any presupposed position. Again, you respond as if I'm denying global warming. My position, which I've clearly spelled out, is I don't know what's going on, so I have no presupposed position. Again, you see something in my writing that is not there and you are responding to things I never expressed, thus making communication impossible, so adieu.

[Inward Visionary]

Originally Posted by Cassie

It's kind of heartwarming to see Inward Visionary, Valnoran and a few others supporting a minority lost cause. In the unlikely event that their denialist perspectives turn out to be proved correct, I hope I will have the good grace to admit that they were right all along.
In the meantime however, for the sake of the future generations that will have to live with the consequences of the decisions made in our time, I think it is prudent to be guided by the vast and overwhelming majority of experts who believe that climate change is real, happening now and is significantly impacted by fossil fuel emissions and other human activity.
It's fun to play the lottery from time to time and hope that the number you want to believe in is the one that comes up; it's pretty dumb and irresponsible to gamble your children's future health and well being on a flight of fancy though, which seems to me to be the stance of climate change deniers.

Huh? I just responded to your last post saying that for me it isn't a question of whether or not it is happening that it's a question of how large of a problem it really is and what the best solutions are. I don't think something like cap and tax legislation or kyoto2 is the best solution, or even good at all. Talking about children futures. Children won't have much of a future without financial stability and a stable, or at least much more economical, source of power. Alternative energy sources are not economical right now, and not tested well large scale. But I think research and testing should increase, even be government subsidized.

The fact is that energy companies are accepting and researching and implementing possibilities outside of fossil fuels. If change is going to happen it has to happen naturally and organically, which for the most part it always has. Not in a way that's going to cripple economies and families and individuals economically. This is an attack on industrialization. Technology can advanced and energy can become cleaner and more efficient without attacking the industry that got us to this point.

The whole idea that man-made global warming is an immediate threat and we need to take legislative action without haste is a terrible and dangerous idea.

[Inward Visionary]

Originally Posted by Valnorran

Now, here is my take on the whole global warming issue. This is from the perspective of a laymen whose scholarly training lies in a different field than science.

As I go about my life, I am presented with the issue of global warming. On the one hand, it could spell the end of humanity (although as time goes on, I'm less and less certain that's a bad thing ). On the other hand, it might not be happening, or if it is it might be something completely out of our control. In that case attempting to stop it will probably only cause more problems. So... what to do? My natural impulse is to try and understand what's going on. Towards that end, I try to notice things and ask a lot of questions. So here is a hodge podge of questions, things I've noticed, and thoughts that crossed my mind.

As far as I can tell, serious study of global climate change has only been going on for about forty years or so. That's a pretty short lifespan compared to most other sciences, and I think it's also a pretty short period of time to try and understand something as complex as the entire world's climate. To me this relative lack of experience means the odds of them having all of this so perfectly figured out are pretty slim. I don't think we've been studying global climate change long enough to really be aware of what we don't know. We can rule out certain possible causes for warming, but for all we know there are factors at work about which we are totally ignorant. Climate has always changed, sometimes quite radically, so what about the current change? Some say its rapidity proves human causes, but how can we be so sure? How do we know its rapidity isn't natural and it just happened to occur while we were here to witness it? Given the short span of time we've been studying this complex phenomenon and the vast amount of time the climate has existed, how can we be so sure it isn't the result of some unknown factor?

If the planet as a whole is warming, why are Baltimore and Washington, D.C. currently expriencing record high snowfalls? My own region normally sees snow once every seven or eight years, yet the last two years set new records for early snowfalls. Several regions have experienced record cold winters in the last ten years. Fom 1930 to 2000, Pasadena, CA, Berkley, CA, Death Valley, CA, and New York City have experienced an increase in temperature. In that same period, McGill, NV, Guthrie, OK, Boulder, CO, Truman, MO, Greenville, SC, Ann Arbor, MI, Syracuse, NY, Albany, NY, and Oswego, NY all experienced a decrease in temperature. Albany and New York City are only a hundred miles apart. West Point, NY, lies between them, but from 1826 to 200 their temperatures remained stable. Alice Springs, Australia, has had stable temperatures from 1879 to 2003. Clyde, NWT has experience cooling from 1943 to 2004. Christchurch, NZ has experienced warming from 1864 to 2003. So has Kamenskoe, Siberia from 1949 to 1998, as well as Rome from 1811 to 1989. Paris has cooled from 1757 to 1995. So has Stuttgart from 1792 to 1999 and Navacerrada, Spain from 1941 to 2004. In Japan, Choshi has warmed from 1887 to 2004, Tokyo warmed from 1876 to 2004, and Takayama has warmed from 1900 to 1990. Lahore City, Pakistan has warmed from 1876 to 2003. The records naturally have years of varying warming or cooling, but once graphed they show a general trend - warming, cooling, or stable. And CO2 has increased worldwide. So if the warming is global and CO2 is the main culprit, why the divergence among these regions?

Melting glaciers is another one. We always hear about how the world's glaciers are melting, but here's the thing. Of the 67,000 or so glaciers, only a few have been studied with care, and only 79 have mass balance data going back five years or more. On that limited knowledge base, we cannot say "the world's glaciers are melting" because we don't know.

Rising sea levels is another. Sea levels have been rising for the last 6000 years. They rise about four to eight inches every hundred years or so. To top it all off, computer models are offered up as proof when the best they can do is predict. A prediction - something that hasn't happened yet - cannot, by definition, be proof.

Based on things like this, I think there's room for asking questions.

Another big argument is that even if global warming isn't a problem we should do something. My first objection to this argument is that is assumes we can control the climate. The second problem is that if we took measures the benevolent scientists would not be the ones calling the shots. Politicians would. How can anyone expect politicians to manage the climate when they cannot manage their own finances or personal lives? My personal belief is that controling a system as complex as a planet's climate is not humanly possible, but even if it is do we honestly want it to be a government operation?

As this layman watches things unfold, he begins to think there is no way to really understand what's going on because the topic has just gotten too politicized. Supporters accuse deniers of having an agenda, but don't the supporters, the ones calling for drastic changes, also have an agenda? Of course they do. Everyone does. To dismiss one group's findings because someone is paying them is silly. Everyone's salaries are paid by someone, and environmental groups are no different. If the environment is saved, they can kiss those donations good-bye and start looking for real jobs. They say researchers working for corporations have a vested interest in ignoring global warming, but they have a vested interest in making sure their pet problem is never solved. They are no purer than the corporate shills they so despise.

It's hard to take the global warming thing seriously when I see who is on board with it. Scientists? Sure, but also flaming hypocrites like Al Gore, corrupt organizations like the UN, and slobbering nutjobs like environmental extremists who are famous for making huge doomsday prophecies that never come true. When people like this are sold on an idea, I can't help questioning that idea's credibility.

Given the short span of time we've been studying this complex phenomenon, how can we be so sure it isn't the result of some unknown factor? How do we know it isn't just coincidence that this warming takes place during our tenure? The whole thing smells to me of human arrogance. It reminds me of a small child who happens to clap his hands right before it rains and becomes totally convinced he controls the weather. We can't handle the idea that nature does what it does without regard for our input or convenience. We seem to want things to stay the same, something in direct opposition to natural law. Even if the current climate change is normal we want to stop it. It just looks to me like we, like the child who clapped his hands before it rained, noticed a warming trend - a very brief one, in terms of the planet's life - saw some things that linked it to us and instantly concluded its our fault, never considering that things often just happen and there isn't a hell of a lot we can do about it. This issue has generated a lot of hystrics, panic and strife. It has even taken on a quasi-religious aspect: there are fearful predictions, end-of-the-world scenarios, don't ask questions, just shut up and obey, anyone who questions will not be tolerated. Politics got thrown into the mix and the result of this neurotic mishmash, I fear, will render any honest attempts at resolution impossible.

That's how this issue looks to me. I'm trying to make sense of it as best I can, an effort that seems to irritate a lot of global warming supporters. I find this - getting angry for someone asking questions in an attempt to understand something - particularly odd considering their professed love for science. You'd think they would welcome such a thing. It creates the impression that I'm just supposed to shut up and obey, which creates the impression that if they don't want to explain their position perhaps it's because they aren't totally convinced their position is the correct one, which creates the impression they have something to hide, and that just opens a whole new batch of questions and the cycle starts over again. That is the result of these emails, and it probably never would have happened if the issue wasn't so politicized. I suspect politics has hopelessly contaminated this topic.

Good post. The Earth has had all different changes. Mountains used to be underwater. Things underwater used to be dry land. Greenland used to be green. We used to have one solid land mass, no continents. So what happened? Things changed and moved around. Hell Mars and Venus used to have water. And what do the politicians want to do about it? Kill jobs? Kill productivity? Tax the hell out of families and businesses? If there's a problem, there's a tax for that.

If rising sea levels is such a problem then isn't that what dams are for? Can't we pipe water to places under drought? That all creates jobs. Politicians have no sense of innovation. They have a crude sense of power, control, and superiority though.

Like I've been posting all along in this thread... we shouldn't be focusing so much on trying to control things like the climate, we should be focusing on how to adapt to the changes, which for the most part in the past we have been. If that means burning more fossil fuels in order to advance our technology to a greater state of efficiency then so be it.

As a side note, here are some good studies about the supposed "scientific consensus": Global Warming

[Cassie]

Valnoran and Inward Visionary, do you deny that the vast majority of scientific experts agree (quite passionately) that the present climate change is caused (at least in part) by human activity (in particular greenhouse gas emmisions)?

[Njorun Alma]

Originally Posted by Inward Visionary

Huh? I just responded to your last post saying that for me it isn't a question of whether or not it is happening that it's a question of how large of a problem it really is and what the best solutions are. I don't think something like cap and tax legislation or kyoto2 is the best solution, or even good at all. Talking about children futures. Children won't have much of a future without financial stability and a stable, or at least much more economical, source of power. Alternative energy sources are not economical right now, and not tested well large scale. But I think research and testing should increase, even be government subsidized.

The fact is that energy companies are accepting and researching and implementing possibilities outside of fossil fuels. If change is going to happen it has to happen naturally and organically, which for the most part it always has. Not in a way that's going to cripple economies and families and individuals economically. This is an attack on industrialization. Technology can advanced and energy can become cleaner and more efficient without attacking the industry that got us to this point.

The whole idea that man-made global warming is an immediate threat and we need to take legislative action without haste is a terrible and dangerous idea.

You do know that human beings rely extremely much more on the access to food and water than the access to little paper notes and ones and zeros in a computer, don't you?

The ice caps are already melting at an alarming rate, the sea levels are rising and the average ocean temperature is rising, drought and bushfires are becoming increasingly worse, the destabilization of the weather is forcing people to flee their homes... we now have such a thing as climate refugees.

Drought and melting icecaps is already affecting a lot of people, now I know you probably don't give a crap about villages in Alaska, Greenland, Africa or whatnot as long as it doesn't effect you personally and you can still drive whatever car you drive and do whatever you want but fact of the matter is that the shit is already hitting the fan and this is a crucial point.
Are we just going to sit on our ignorant, selfish asses and do nothing, or are we going to try and fix what we screwed up in the first place.

Companies never do things without pressure unless there are big, quick bucks in it. Open your eyes, research what's going on around the planet and then come back and say that sitting here, rolling our thumbs and wait for big corporations to lose interest in money and grow a social conscience is the best idea.

[Inward Visionary]

Originally Posted by Cassie

Valnoran and Inward Visionary, do you deny that the vast majority of scientific experts agree (quite passionately) that the present climate change is caused (at least in part) by human activity (in particular greenhouse gas emmisions)?

No. I don't deny that the majority of scientific experts agree on something. But it doesn't prove anything. And it doesn't accurately spell out the real impact humans have on the planet in relation to everything else. Which is something unknown. Any honest scientist is going to question climate theories. Presenting facts and evidence is one thing. But jumping to conclusions and stating things as absolutes and stating that my evidence proves this or that is questionable behavior, especially when other experts look at your data and say that it doesn't prove what you claim it to prove. The majority consensus at one point in time used to be that the Earth was flat.

[Infinite Grey]

Originally Posted by Inward Visionary

No. I don't deny that the majority of scientific experts agree on something. But it doesn't prove anything. And it doesn't accurately spell out the real impact humans have on the planet in relation to everything else. Which is something unknown. Any honest scientist is going to question climate theories. Presenting facts and evidence is one thing. But jumping to conclusions and stating things as absolutes and stating that my evidence proves this or that is questionable behavior, especially when other experts look at your data and say that it doesn't prove what you claim it to prove. The majority consensus at one point in time used to be that the Earth was flat.

This is why I do not believe people like you and val are not honest in your claims to be trying to understand the issue. IF you actually read what the scientists are saying, IF you understood the methodologies they use, you would not be making such blatantly ignorant statements.

You question the honesty of the majority of scientists, but not the honesty of the minority that hold positions you agree with. You create conspiracy theories instead of invoking occam's razor. Is it any wonder that people get frustrated?

It's funny how dubious and shady scientists become when they present something that conflicts with your ideology, but not others that agree or are benign.

[Inward Visionary]

Originally Posted by Njorun Alma

You do know that human beings rely extremely much more on the access to food and water than the access to little paper notes and ones and zeros in a computer, don't you?

The ice caps are already melting at an alarming rate, the sea levels are rising and the average ocean temperature is rising, drought and bushfires are becoming increasingly worse, the destabilization of the weather is forcing people to flee their homes... we now have such a thing as climate refugees.

Drought and melting icecaps is already affecting a lot of people, now I know you probably don't give a crap about villages in Alaska, Greenland, Africa or whatnot as long as it doesn't effect you personally and you can still drive whatever car you drive and do whatever you want but fact of the matter is that the shit is already hitting the fan and this is a crucial point.
Are we just going to sit on our ignorant, selfish asses and do nothing, or are we going to try and fix what we screwed up in the first place.

Companies never do things without pressure unless there are big, quick bucks in it. Open your eyes, research what's going on around the planet and then come back and say that sitting here, rolling our thumbs and wait for big corporations to lose interest in money and grow a social conscience is the best idea.

Yes I'm aware what's going on. I know you think I'm a complete ignorant and selfish moron but most people do not.

What exactly is your plan in a climate crises? You can pick on my ideas and condescend to me all you want, if that gets you off. But most of the people here opposing me are missing a very simple point. I'm talking about solutions to take from here. I've heard none from you. All it is is a bunch of moonbat ideology. "Global warming is happening and we're all DOOOMED!! It's because of you pompous jackassy capitalists! We're going to destroy you!"

You have a terrible understanding of economics. Companies are constantly under pressure from the market. They don't make money unless people pay them. You don't have to spend your money on anything you don't want to. If you don't like it, don't buy it. It's simple. Like I said earlier, energy companies are pretty onboard with the environmental movement. Settle the hug down and let the economies around the world work naturally and find innovative solutions to real problems. What more can you do besides live your life the way you think is right?