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

onelongsong

Royals32 wrote:

Shit, does that mean we're going to start arguing about lunar climate change?

in general; people know maybe 25% to 30% of the true facts about global warming. they believe the bits they want to and ignore the bits they don't want to think about.

to prove my point; who on this board has realized that as the ice melts; it distributes it's weight around the globe? this change in pressure on the plates will and has been causing an increase in earthquakes. it has to. from 1980 to 1990; there was something like 89 earthquakes. from 1990 to 2000 there were just over 200. and they get progressively worse. if you graph earthquake frequency with the loss of ice; you'll see they run together proving this cause.

this is only one facet NEVER mentioned on this board except by me.

or how about this; canada's tundra is held together by ice. when that ice softens; an earthquake will cause the tundra to stratify and slip into the sea. in alaska; an entire coastal town slipped into the sea when the ground stratified because of an earthquake.

polaris

PJPOWER wrote:

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.

there is no such thing as an unbiased source ... my opinion that it is beyond debate is just that - my opinion ... it's what my 5 years studying environmental science and 8 mths working for climate change groups has told me ...

yeah - everyone has an agenda - but what is the agenda for an environmentalist?? ... a sustainable clean planet? ...

polaris

Royals32 wrote:

edit for space ...

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?

ha! ... did you read what you posted??

what part of anything you typed says that climate change isn't caused by man?? ... nothing!! ...

if the term "very likely" is not good enuf for you - so be it ... i can't control what level of certainty you hope to extract from words ... but the reality is we are suffering the impacts RIGHT NOW ... feel free to debate and cast doubt all you want ... that's your perogative ...

polaris

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.

bush didn't sign cuz of developing nations?? ... you don't seriously believe that do you? ... he also said there were WMD and nuclear weapons in iraq ... c'mon now!

PJPOWER

polaris wrote:

there is no such thing as an unbiased source ... my opinion that it is beyond debate is just that - my opinion ... it's what my 5 years studying environmental science and 8 mths working for climate change groups has told me ...

yeah - everyone has an agenda - but what is the agenda for an environmentalist?? ... a sustainable clean planet? ...

There may not be a truly unbiased source, but there is a such thing as more biased and less biased. I want a cleaner environment as well, but that doesn't mean I'm going to go out on a quest to save the world without knowing that my method actually has the potential to solve whatever problem I'm trying to solve. And, in my opinion, the best way to figure out what will actually make a difference is by looking at ALL of the research and finding out what exactly is going on. If a physicist says that the argument by other scientists in other realms of science is physically impossible..........it seems logical that those other scientists might want to check into that instead of saying...."nope, our minds are already made up, it's non-debatable"..........unless they have a personal agenda hidden in their so called "enviromentalist" quest. Just because someone says they are an enviromentalist doesn't really mean that they actually know what they're talking about...............they may mean the best, but if they are basing all of their knowledge on inconclusive or extremely biased research, how much good are they really doing? Trying to fix a problem is a completely different thing than actually fixing it. I could try to repair an engine forever and never get it working without the right tools or information about how an engine actually works.

polaris

PJPOWER wrote:

There may not be a truly unbiased source, but there is a such thing as more biased and less biased. I want a cleaner environment as well, but that doesn't mean I'm going to go out on a quest to save the world without knowing that my method actually has the potential to solve whatever problem I'm trying to solve. And, in my opinion, the best way to figure out what will actually make a difference is by looking at ALL of the research and finding out what exactly is going on. If a physicist says that the argument by other scientists in other realms of science is physically impossible..........it seems logical that those other scientists might want to check into that instead of saying...."nope, our minds are already made up, it's non-debatable"..........unless they have a personal agenda hidden in their so called "enviromentalist" quest. Just because someone says they are an enviromentalist doesn't really mean that they actually know what they're talking about...............they may mean the best, but if they are basing all of their knowledge on inconclusive or extremely biased research, how much good are they really doing? Trying to fix a problem is a completely different thing than actually fixing it. I could try to repair an engine forever and never get it working without the right tools or information about how an engine actually works.

ok?

sooo - you've read everything - what do you think?

surferdude

polaris wrote:

yeah - everyone has an agenda - but what is the agenda for an environmentalist?? ... a sustainable clean planet? ...

Continued funding for their research. In general, research funding dollars are only given out to address issues. The more fear they can create around the issue the more funding they'll get. "Drilling for fear makes the job simple"

PJPOWER

polaris wrote:

ok?

sooo - you've read everything - what do you think?

That's just my point. I don't think there is enough conclusive research out there. From the research I've seen as of yet, there's evidence that we may be effecting climate change...............Yet, there seems to be way larger forces that we have no control over effecting it on a far larger scale. I believe that the subject has been blown out of proportion on both sides, which is hindering the actual good information. I believe that much of the research is left out because it doesn't support the conclusion that some of the researchers or funders are trying to come to. I believer that more reliable research is needed before we waste all of our resources on an unreliable solution.

p.s. I haven't "read everything"................."everything" is yet to be published.

PJPOWER

surferdude wrote:

Continued funding for their research. In general, research funding dollars are only given out to address issues. The more fear they can create around the issue the more funding they'll get. "Drilling for fear makes the job simple"

Sad but true..............If people didn't think that our planet was dying, would the researchers really have a job? Not to say that our planet is or isn't dying of course, lol

Royals32

polaris wrote:

ha! ... did you read what you posted??

what part of anything you typed says that climate change isn't caused by man?? ... nothing!! ...

if the term "very likely" is not good enuf for you - so be it ... i can't control what level of certainty you hope to extract from words ... but the reality is we are suffering the impacts RIGHT NOW ... feel free to debate and cast doubt all you want ... that's your perogative ...

Sorry, "very likely" isn't good enough now and it won't ever be. If it's good enough for you, then good luck to you. If you're stydying environmental science and "very likely" is an acceptable foundation on which to build a theory, then I think I've found the problem.

Come on man, I've read some of your other posts...I know you're smarter than you're pretending to be

polaris

surferdude wrote:

Continued funding for their research. In general, research funding dollars are only given out to address issues. The more fear they can create around the issue the more funding they'll get. "Drilling for fear makes the job simple"

ok ... pretty cynical but i guess it's valid ... doesn't mean i agree but understanding what i know of you - i can see how you can have that viewpoint ...

polaris

PJPOWER wrote:

That's just my point. I don't think there is enough conclusive research out there. From the research I've seen as of yet, there's evidence that we may be effecting climate change...............Yet, there seems to be way larger forces that we have no control over effecting it on a far larger scale. I believe that the subject has been blown out of proportion on both sides, which is hindering the actual good information. I believe that much of the research is left out because it doesn't support the conclusion that some of the researchers or funders are trying to come to. I believer that more reliable research is needed before we waste all of our resources on an unreliable solution.

p.s. I haven't "read everything"................."everything" is yet to be published.

everything is what is available to us now ... anyhoo - like i said - feel free to wait until you hear more ... i can't control what you read and how you dissect it but in MY opinion - this is the same as debating whether the earth is flat ...

polaris

Royals32 wrote:

Come on man, I've read some of your other posts...I know you're smarter than you're pretending to be

i would say this is the most assinine comment people type on message boards ... i'd rather be called an idiot ...

i'll give u the example i give everyone else who never responds ... what if i put 100 barrels of toxic waste in your bedroom ... will you wait for someone to say you will FOR SURE get cancer before you vacate or is "very likely" good enuf then?

PJPOWER

polaris wrote:

everything is what is available to us now ... anyhoo - like i said - feel free to wait until you hear more ... i can't control what you read and how you dissect it but in MY opinion - this is the same as debating whether the earth is flat ...

Well, it's obviously undebatable to the person who is so close-minded that they won't take into account any further research proving that the world is in fact round...........

surferdude

polaris wrote:

ok ... pretty cynical but i guess it's valid ... doesn't mean i agree but understanding what i know of you - i can see how you can have that viewpoint ...

This is how all research funding works, it's not an inditement of climate change research or funding, or an opinion that all climate change researchers have adopted this tactic.

David Suzuki has quite successfully been using this tactic for decades. But thne again the canadian government is a pretty easy mark for a snakeoil salesman like Suzuki.

polaris

PJPOWER wrote:

Well, it's obviously undebatable to the person who is so close-minded that they won't take into account any further research proving that the world is in fact round...........

really? ... the world is round? ... :rolleyes:

i've read the stuff ... is anything you have peer-reviewed in any scientific journals? ...

polaris

surferdude wrote:

This is how all research funding works, it's not an inditement of climate change research or funding, or an opinion that all climate change researchers have adopted this tactic.

David Suzuki has quite successfully been using this tactic for decades. But thne again the canadian government is a pretty easy mark for a snakeoil salesman like Suzuki.

lemme guess ... he has like 7 kids - must hate him ...

PJPOWER

polaris wrote:

really? ... the world is round? ... :rolleyes:

i've read the stuff ... is anything you have peer-reviewed in any scientific journals? ...

Actually, you're right, I hear that it's technically more of an oval shape, lol, but if you want to continue believing that it's round, that's perfectly fine by me :P

polaris

PJPOWER wrote:

Actually, you're right, I hear that it's technically more of an oval shape, lol, but if you want to continue believing that it's round, that's perfectly fine by me :P

uhhh ... i think oval is considered round ...

onelongsong

polaris wrote:

bush didn't sign cuz of developing nations?? ... you don't seriously believe that do you? ... he also said there were WMD and nuclear weapons in iraq ... c'mon now!

first; clinton gave saddam biologicals and nuclear capabilities so he did have them. we know because we gave them to him. in fact; after 9/11 extensive testing was done to see if the strain of anthrax being sent through the mail was the strain we gave him.

if you read the treaty; developing nations are exempt. that is why china jumped to sign it. developing nations include india; china; most of south and central america; new zealand; and many more. if this isn't a world effort; it's a waste of time.