The secret campaign of the Bush administration to deny global warming (a must read)

24

Comments

  • ForestBrain
    ForestBrain Posts: 460
    Because this concerns global warming, I'm going to repeat a really good question my sister brought up today (directed at people who believe in evolution):
    If we have evolved over the past millions of years so as to adapt to our climate, then shouldn't we evolve more so that we may be able to live in an overheated environment?
    When life gives you lemons, throw them at somebody.
  • Alex_Coe
    Alex_Coe Posts: 762
    ForestBrain wrote:
    Because this concerns global warming, I'm going to repeat a really good question my sister brought up today (directed at people who believe in evolution):
    If we have evolved over the past millions of years so as to adapt to our climate, then shouldn't we evolve more so that we may be able to live in an overheated environment?


    I can't evolve that fast, my man.
  • Royals32
    Royals32 Posts: 160
    my2hands wrote:
    1. do you think global warming is real?

    2. if yes, do you think humans are the main cause of this?

    My point in that post was that the writer of that article lost his own direction and should have stuck to the point rather than adding in all that bullshit about how people look and the war in Iraq. Those things have nothing to do with global warming or the topic of the article.

    To answer your questions:


    1. ABSOLUTELY. It's going to be 35 today in Toronto (42+ with the humidex). It was never this hot this early in the year.

    2. ABSOLUTELY PROBABLY NOT. There are reports and studies - also being modified and covered up BY THE OTHER SIDE that indicate that Mars is warming at a comparable rate to Earth. If that is in fact true, I would really find it hard to beleieve that we had something to do with that. NASA has also reported in separate studies that the sun is getting hotter and solar radiation and activity are at an all time high. Coincidence? Honestly, I don't know but it IS something to think about.
    #==(o )

    You are not your job.
    You are not how much money you have in the bank.
    You are not the car you drive.
    You are not the contents of your wallet.
    You are not your fucking khakis.
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    Purple Hawk wrote:
    ok, i'll ask the question again, what is the independent effect of human activity on climate change. answer that question, in one short paragraph b/c it shouldn't take more than that if its "setteled science" and i'm on board.

    why independent effect!?? ... this is the environment - everything is interconnected ...

    the only thing you need to understand to be on board is the greenhouse effect - do you accept the science behind it?
  • my2hands
    my2hands Posts: 17,117
    Purple Hawk wrote:
    ok, i'll ask the question again, what is the independent effect of human activity on climate change. answer that question, in one short paragraph b/c it shouldn't take more than that if its "setteled science" and i'm on board.


    man-made greenhouse gases.

    i think that is accepted by 99% of the scientific community.

    the funny thing is, just as i thought, the right wingers are the ones thinking it is bullshit. that was so predictable.

    but your right, you guys know more than the entire world scietific community.
  • my2hands
    my2hands Posts: 17,117
    i am not going to debate global warming, or our devastating effect on the enviroment. i think it is well beyond that stage. i think it is a waste of my time to debate with people who disregard science and the massive scientific consensus. i am trying to focus my energy on what i can do to help.

    the funny thing is, that every single person that i have talked to in real life that deny's global warming and our impact, voted for Bush. coincidence? i think not.

    i posted the article because it lays out how this administration has continued to lie and decieve when it comes to global warming and the enviroment. pretty fucking sad that it is still working on some. but i guess they like oil industry cronies in the administartion changing official scientific reports. :rolleyes:
  • my2hands
    my2hands Posts: 17,117
    Royals32 wrote:

    2. ABSOLUTELY PROBABLY NOT. There are reports and studies - also being modified and covered up BY THE OTHER SIDE that indicate that Mars is warming at a comparable rate to Earth. If that is in fact true, I would really find it hard to beleieve that we had something to do with that. NASA has also reported in separate studies that the sun is getting hotter and solar radiation and activity are at an all time high. Coincidence? Honestly, I don't know but it IS something to think about.

    i really dont want to debate this, but you really disagree with 2000 leading scientists in the field from 150 countries?

    dude, the facts are in. accept it.
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    my2hands wrote:
    i really dont want to debate this, but you really disagree with 2000 leading scientists in the field from 150 countries?

    dude, the facts are in. accept it.

    anyone who writes Absolutely and Probably right next to each other is not really convincing in my books ... :p
  • my2hands
    my2hands Posts: 17,117
    polaris wrote:
    anyone who writes Absolutely and Probably right next to each other is not really convincing in my books ... :p

    you are PROBABLY ABSOLUTELY POSSIBLY WITHOUT A DOUBT MAYBE correct! :cool:
  • Royals32
    Royals32 Posts: 160
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    We blew a hole in the Ozone layer with CFC's in 1985....that was over 20 years ago...and approx 2 billion less people than today.

    So who still thinks what we do has no effect on the planet again?....

    Duhhhh....


    OK, forget it.
    #==(o )

    You are not your job.
    You are not how much money you have in the bank.
    You are not the car you drive.
    You are not the contents of your wallet.
    You are not your fucking khakis.
  • Royals32
    Royals32 Posts: 160
    The "absolutely probably" thing was an admittedly lame attempt by me to show that I'm not sure either, and that's my overall point. Nobody is sure. Consensus by definition is an agreement of opinion. OPINION IS NOT FACT. I wasn't trying to be convincing.

    I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything. I'm trying to be convinced. I want to believe, but I'm not willing to just accept Al Gore and CBC and CNN and the rest of them simply at face value. I'm a little skeptical of anything that explodes into such a political issue so fast and I'm curious as to why there is some division between scientists if it's so easy for everyone else to see. Once both the US and Canadaian federal elections are done 18 months (or so) from now, I wonder if we re-visited the whole topic if it'll as big an issue then as it is now.

    To be honest, I'm not even convinced by some of the points I have made myself (they were not all my opinions, I tried to use the most opposed viewpoints I could find) but I wanted to present them here in a Devil's Advocate type of role to get some input and see if I could learn a thing or two. Maybe it's my bad for not being up front with that, but I thought I was polite and respectful enough to everyone that I didn't really have to. Instead, I get answers like DUH..., and dude the facts are in, accept it...also very unconvincing arguments. I don't disagree with everything I've read that supports the argument that human activities have had a negative impact on this planet, I just don't eat it up like some people do.

    Anyway...I'm out.
    #==(o )

    You are not your job.
    You are not how much money you have in the bank.
    You are not the car you drive.
    You are not the contents of your wallet.
    You are not your fucking khakis.
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    Royals32 wrote:
    The "absolutely probably" thing was an admittedly lame attempt by me to show that I'm not sure either, and that's my overall point. Nobody is sure. Consensus by definition is an agreement of opinion. OPINION IS NOT FACT. I wasn't trying to be convincing.

    I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything. I'm trying to be convinced. I want to believe, but I'm not willing to just accept Al Gore and CBC and CNN and the rest of them simply at face value. I'm a little skeptical of anything that explodes into such a political issue so fast and I'm curious as to why there is some division between scientists if it's so easy for everyone else to see. Once both the US and Canadaian federal elections are done 18 months (or so) from now, I wonder if we re-visited the whole topic if it'll as big an issue then as it is now.

    To be honest, I'm not even convinced by some of the points I have made myself (they were not all my opinions, I tried to use the most opposed viewpoints I could find) but I wanted to present them here in a Devil's Advocate type of role to get some input and see if I could learn a thing or two. Maybe it's my bad for not being up front with that, but I thought I was polite and respectful enough to everyone that I didn't really have to. Instead, I get answers like DUH..., and dude the facts are in, accept it...also very unconvincing arguments. I don't disagree with everything I've read that supports the argument that human activities have had a negative impact on this planet, I just don't eat it up like some people do.

    Anyway...I'm out.

    fair enough

    but there is plenty of science around this - if you get past the hype of this and that - and do some reading - you will see that this is definitely the single biggest issue facing life on this planet ...

    you're right in one thing - no one can truly know exactly what will happen or when it'll happen but we know it's not/hasn't been good ...
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    I did not vote for Bush, I am not a republican, I am not a religious fear monger, and I seriously question the human impact on global warming. I also tend to question politicians that say they have the truth, or say that they are honest as well as people that draw conclusions based on assumptions rather than conclusive scientific research. I guess I'm a skeptic, but at least I try to listen to arguments from both sides..........since both sides of the debate are very capable of using propoganda. This is something I read today. I'm not saying I have sold myself to this idea either, but it shows how the scientific community isn't really in agreement about the causes of the climate change.
    http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?e9e9ac7e-64b1-4fc5-a8ae-fe52f699adac
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    PJPOWER wrote:
    I did not vote for Bush, I am not a republican, I am not a religious fear monger, and I seriously question the human impact on global warming. I also tend to question politicians that say they have the truth, or say that they are honest as well as people that draw conclusions based on assumptions rather than conclusive scientific research. I guess I'm a skeptic, but at least I try to listen to arguments from both sides..........since both sides of the debate are very capable of using propoganda. This is something I read today. I'm not saying I have sold myself to this idea either, but it shows how the scientific community isn't really in agreement about the causes of the climate change.
    http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?e9e9ac7e-64b1-4fc5-a8ae-fe52f699adac

    read the ipcc reports - they ARE the scientific community ... a nuclear scientist is not a climatologist ...
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    polaris wrote:
    read the ipcc reports - they ARE the scientific community ... a nuclear scientist is not a climatologist ...
    Does that mean that both should be ignorant to the science of each other? Maybe i'm wrong, but I thought physics had something to do with weather...........
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    PJPOWER wrote:
    Does that mean that both should be ignorant to the science of each other? Maybe i'm wrong, but I thought physics had something to do with weather...........

    uhhh ... sorry - but this issue is beyond debate now ... i don't really wanna rehash what has been discussed too many times on here already ... all i'm saying is if you really care to find out - read the ipcc reports ...
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    polaris wrote:
    uhhh ... sorry - but this issue is beyond debate now ... i don't really wanna rehash what has been discussed too many times on here already ... all i'm saying is if you really care to find out - read the ipcc reports ...
    I have read the IPCC reports....................very good reading. Non the less, I don't see how you can say an issue is "beyond debate". Regardless, the point that I was trying to make is that there is plenty of propoganda and deception for political reasons on both sides of the fence. There is always going to be people creating a perception of fear for their own personal gain, especially politicians. I tend to remain skeptical of things until I hear all of the facts from unbiased sources..............which seem to be few and far between.
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    this just goes to show that people have no idea what they're talking about. first of all; bush didn't sign kyoto because it excluded developing nations. these are the biggest offenders and excluding them wouldn't make a difference in emissions. kyoto was just a political ploy to keep the masses happy. each one of us is responsable for controlling our emissions. nobody wants the government following them around. as for denying global warming; bush has a plan in motion to harvest helium3 from the moon. the first mission starts in 2008. harvesting helium3 will solve the earths energy problem for at least 1000 years.

    truth be known; he went with the cure instead of the band aid.
  • Royals32
    Royals32 Posts: 160
    polaris wrote:
    uhhh ... sorry - but this issue is beyond debate now ... i don't really wanna rehash what has been discussed too many times on here already ... all i'm saying is if you really care to find out - read the ipcc reports ...


    Please feel free to NOT DEBATE then.

    But if you're reading further, let me ask you...have you read the IPCC reports? I just did. Not every single one, but the last one from May 4 in Bangkok.

    Go to section G. It explains in full detail how their conclusions are reached...in the IPCC'S OWN WORDS:

    http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM040507.pdf


    G. Gaps in knowledge
    There are still relevant gaps in currently available knowledge regarding some
    aspects of mitigation of climate change, especially in developing countries.
    Additional research addressing those gaps would further reduce uncertainties and
    thus facilitate decision-making related to mitigation of climate change [TS.14].


    Endbox 1: Uncertainty representation
    Uncertainty is an inherent feature of any assessment. The fourth assessment report clarifies
    the uncertainties associated with essential statements.

    Fundamental differences between the underlying disciplinary sciences of the three Working
    Group reports make a common approach impractical. The “likelihood” approach applied in
    "Climate change 2007, the physical science basis" and the “confidence” and “likelihood”
    approaches used in "Climate change 2007, impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability" were
    judged to be inadequate to deal with the specific uncertainties involved in this mitigation
    report, as here human choices are considered.
    In this report a two-dimensional scale is used for the treatment of uncertainty. The scale is
    based on the expert judgment of the authors of WGIII on the level of concurrence in the
    literature on a particular finding (level of agreement), and the number and quality of
    independent sources qualifying under the IPCC rules upon which the finding is based
    (amount of evidence33) (see Table SPM.E.1). This is not a quantitative approach, from which
    probabilities relating to uncertainty can be derived.


    Table

    ***THERE IS A TABLE HERE EXPLAINING THE DIFFERENT WAYS DECUCTIONS ARE MADE***

    Amount of evidencea) (number and quality of independent sources)
    a) “Evidence” in this report is defined as: Information or signs indicating whether a belief or proposition is
    true or valid. See Glossary.
    25 Because the future is inherently uncertain, scenarios i.e. internally consistent images of
    different futures - not predictions of the future - have been used extensively in this report.


    Again, just to re-cap...in the IPCC's own words, they reach conclusions based on "confidence" and "likelihood." If you're comfortable with that then good luck to you. I'm curious though, why that part of the IPCC reports don't make it into any of your posts. You make these reports out to be gospel, yet right in the reports themselves they tell you not to take this information as indesputable fact! You can't quote a source and then select the part of the report that supports your argument. Well I guess you can, but it makes you sound very unconvincing.

    So anyway, you were saying?
    #==(o )

    You are not your job.
    You are not how much money you have in the bank.
    You are not the car you drive.
    You are not the contents of your wallet.
    You are not your fucking khakis.
  • Royals32
    Royals32 Posts: 160
    onelongsong wrote:
    this just goes to show that people have no idea what they're talking about. first of all; bush didn't sign kyoto because it excluded developing nations. these are the biggest offenders and excluding them wouldn't make a difference in emissions. kyoto was just a political ploy to keep the masses happy. each one of us is responsable for controlling our emissions. nobody wants the government following them around. as for denying global warming; bush has a plan in motion to harvest helium3 from the moon. the first mission starts in 2008. harvesting helium3 will solve the earths energy problem for at least 1000 years.

    truth be known; he went with the cure instead of the band aid.

    Shit, does that mean we're going to start arguing about lunar climate change?
    #==(o )

    You are not your job.
    You are not how much money you have in the bank.
    You are not the car you drive.
    You are not the contents of your wallet.
    You are not your fucking khakis.

Categories