Al Gore, I'm freezing dammit!

A wingnut with a screw loose.

Moderator: carsonfire

Re: Al Gore, I'm freezing dammit!

Postby Terr on Wed Dec 16, 2009 1:58 am

Casual Notice wrote:I, on one occasion, withheld easily-accessed information—information, I might add, that explains why such a huge garbage pile is not visible from space—just to see if anyone would bother with due diligence, and I was answered with obstructionism on the erroneous and unresearched assumption (no, Terr, you weren't trying to "improve the quality of the discussion" you were trying to shut it down by underlining the enormity of the task—had you any interest in elevating the discussion, you'd have suggested better alternatives, or at least done the twenty seconds of googling necessary to point to the primary flaw in the post), and called a "troll" when I fessed up to the semi-deception.


I, on that occasion as on others, gave you the benefit of the doubt that you were honestly asking the question after you did the due-diligence to warrant asking it. And then I pointed to a primary flaw in the argument (premises + implicit "why don't they" conclusion) that you presented.

You claim I was trying to "shut down" the discussion? Don't be ridiculous. If I wanted to do that I'd say: "The scale is too big. You are a moron. Stop talking." Instead I clearly presented my premises and the estimate because I respected you enough to think you actually cared about real fact-based debate and hadn't (A) deliberately seeded your post with falsehoods (B) would care about the kinds of details which--as you've taken pains to mention--matter.

Hypothetical conversation redux wrote:Casual:
"Since 80% of the people in New York live in urban areas, is that really a good social strategy? Could the state support itself agriculturally if they were somehow cut off? I get nervous about how much liberals support this pattern of urbanization."
Terr:
"Well, let's see... if the population is X and [...lots of clearly disclosed calculations and links to statistical sources...] then with modern agricultural practices, probably yes."
Casual:
"Haha! It's not 80% at all! It's 92% of New York's population that lives in the cities! You're so brainwashed you didn't even check! Stop trying to shut down the debate, you stupid leftist moron!"
User avatar
Terr
Keenspot Juggernaut
 
Posts: 3305
Joined: Sun May 07, 2006 11:49 pm

Re: Al Gore, I'm freezing dammit!

Postby Casual Notice on Wed Dec 16, 2009 4:50 am

Terr wrote:hadn't (A) deliberately seeded your post with falsehoods

There were no falsehoods. There were easily-filled omissions. If, by "falsehood", you mean my stated distatse for "ecologists" who spend mountains of money comitting acts of high seas piracy instead of doing anything worthwhile, I do feel that they would be better served saving the whales from eating benzine-tainted krill and fish than they would be doing what they do now. I also mentioned the use of oil booms for cleanup, which would be well-within the budget of many of the larger green organizations (and I wouldn't be much against using federal tax dollars to help--it would be better than wasting them on handouts to wealthy bankers).
(B) would care about the kinds of details which--as you've taken pains to mention--matter.

I get tired of feeling like I'm the only one (other than Dave and the much-lamented FM) who does independent research even when I agree with an opinion. Do you think (as Carson does) that I developed my moderate-independent stance on the economy just because I'm a knee-jerk apologist? No, I looked into the source of the debate and found both the truth and the falsehoods in the "histories" related by both sides.

Hypothetical conversation redux wrote:Casual:
"Since many of the people in New York live in a single High Rise on 23rd Street, I question the wisdom of New York's urbanization policies. They should probably do more to encourage farming in their state and reduce the rate of semi-rural gentrification."
Terr:
"You stupid old man. Just sitting here in a cafe with a pencil and a napkin shows that one dairy farmer can supply all the needs for Manhattan and part of Queens."
Casual:
"Really? You felt the need to contradict my assertion without checking out the shaky ground on which it was based? I'm disappointed, but not surprised."

Fixed.
The savior of billions (Norman Borlaug) dying barely rated a mention in the news this year. Farrah Fawcett wore a bikini well back in the 70s and she got international coverage. Good job, society.
--Lisa Skye Ioannidis
Image
User avatar
Casual Notice
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 1978
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 10:14 pm
Location: Houston, TX

Re: Al Gore, I'm freezing dammit!

Postby VictorK on Wed Dec 16, 2009 6:36 am

carsonfire wrote:What exactly have you accomplished?


Yet another bizarre analogy that doesn't really capture the dynamics of the situation at all.

Your irrational fear in policy form would enslave developing nations to poverty, unfairly freezing them because you are terrified that they will become "as bad" as the United States.


I certainly don't think that it's good for the world for the over one billion people in India and the soon to be a billion people in Africa to go through the same process of development as the United States. Not only would that not be good for the world but for their own populations as well. You need only look at the public health crisis in China, or the lingering effects in this country from before (and after) the onset of significant environmental regulations in the 1970s.

You are dangerous because of the vast suffering and misery your authoritarian ideology would impose on the entire world; you believe I am dangerous because I won't humor your demented Malthusian beliefs.


This seems like a strange argument to me, that the world must 'suffer' because the vast majority of people will never attain the same level of affluence as was enjoyed by Americans at the turn of the century. That's a rather narrow conception of suffering and misery, isn't it? Is the United States the only development path that's worth following? I don't think it is, nor is it the only way to ensure that people can feed themselves. It's an arrogant statement to suggest otherwise.

Er...btw, it's hard to see what your photo is supposed to show, VK. It's a tighter shot of the ship. And? There's ice around the ship. And? There's ice around the ship in Dave's picture, too. And? Your picture is taken from the ground for dramatic effect, so that patch of ice you see in the foreground is a very small section, which could be easily contained within the patch of ice near the ship in Dave's picture. Is this what the youngsters call "epic fail"? :D


Those pictures are clearly not taken at the same time. Did you not see the ice /on top/ of the ship in my picture that is absent in Dave's? Did you miss the water all around the ship when in mine it's completely surrounded by ice? The ships are about the same size in both pictures, viewed from the same angle (is it just taken from the ground for dramatic effect because there's ice there? Because Dave's picture is clearly from sea level as well) there's just no way that they're taken at the same time. As for your picture, well, no one has ever suggested that in May there aren't pools of water in the arctic ice. That is completely irrelevant to the discussion of a large scale melt.
"The gods are not all powerful, they cannot erase the past."

-Agathon, printed in Ludo de Witte's "The Assassination of Lumumba"
User avatar
VictorK
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 2520
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 3:22 pm

Re: Al Gore, I'm freezing dammit!

Postby carsonfire on Wed Dec 16, 2009 9:43 am

Green line debunking! Green line debunking!

The cast of characters has changed, but notice what's happening: a stubborn refusal to acknowledge the huge elephants in the room. The few things that are challenged are highly arguable, but almost irrelevant -- VK's picture *obviously* wasn't taken "at the same time", but it remains a very *small* slice of vision compared to Dave's picture, and shows the ship pushing through what? THIN ICE. The overhyped concern now is about disappearance AND the thinness of the ice that remains -- so VK's picture doesn't really contradict Dave's, but in some ways bolsters it, except that the imagination of the true believer is grasping at straws.

Instead of addressing the crumbling evidence, we're getting the same *political* arguments. VK, emperor of India, telling India what's good for India, what India better damn well do. Despite your inability to understand simple analogies, you demand that India abandon progressive technologies and industry that will help them modernize and catch up with the modern world. DItto China, despite struggles on the way.

VK: it's none of your damn business what India does, no more than it's mine. They aren't helpless children for the international left to put on the global welfare rolls. They are a nation with their own destiny, and their own future to make. And in any case, it has nothing to do with the fraud that has come to light which you and Terr ignore by obsessing over Casual's post -- just as some of you used to obsess over me, in an effort to filibuster your way out of tight spots.

Are you going to keep on going pretending that the disappearing green line just doesn't exist? Hasn't Markos' minions found an answer, yet? I'm counting on you! :D

[more]

Claim: the burden of proof has shifted to the Warmists.

http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/ ... e_the.html

Chaos in Copenhagen:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30664.html
The Copenhagen climate change conference appeared to be imploding from within and exploding from without on Wednesday.

Police fired tear gas, brandished batons and detained more than 200 protesters who tried to push through the security cordon around the Bella Center, as negotiations inside bogged down, for the second time this week, over differences between China and the West over emissions, funding issues and transparency.


Good. Hopefully nothing will come from this farce whatsoever. It's absurd that nations are trying to bargain away progress and prosperity on the back of a Malthusian fairy tale that's coming apart even as we speak.
Cars, as always
User avatar
carsonfire
Keenspot Mac Daddy
 
Posts: 7772
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Small town, Texas

Re: Al Gore, I'm freezing dammit!

Postby carsonfire on Thu Dec 17, 2009 9:43 pm

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategat ... inos-fall/
The Climategate emails, however, make up only five percent of the Climategate files. The other 95 percent, the programs and data and documents, are where the real story is hiding. That story has begun to come out, in several independent analyses of the data we have, using hints from the emails and from other files and raw data that is available from other sources.


Look at the chart below. Especially you Global Warmists -- the blue line is the raw data. The black line represents the adjustments made to the raw data, hidden until this data leaked -- which create the "hockey stick".

Global Warming is dead.
Attachments
temp-adj.jpg
temp-adj.jpg (74.94 KiB) Viewed 5713 times
Cars, as always
User avatar
carsonfire
Keenspot Mac Daddy
 
Posts: 7772
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Small town, Texas

Re: Al Gore, I'm freezing dammit!

Postby carsonfire on Thu Dec 17, 2009 9:56 pm

God rubs it in...

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... wStc0K6jhY
Blizzard Dumps Snow on Copenhagen as Leaders Battle Warming

“Temperatures will stay low at least the next three days,” Henning Gisseloe, an official at Denmark’s Meteorological Institute, said today by telephone, forecasting more snow in coming days. “There’s a good chance of a white Christmas.”

[...]

Denmark has a maritime climate and milder winters than its Scandinavian neighbors. It hasn’t had a white Christmas for 14 years, under the DMI’s definition, and only had seven last century. Temperatures today fell as low as minus 4 Celsius (25 Fahrenheit).

DMI defines a white Christmas as 90 percent of the country being covered by at least 2 centimeters of snow on the afternoon of Dec. 24.
Cars, as always
User avatar
carsonfire
Keenspot Mac Daddy
 
Posts: 7772
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Small town, Texas

Re: Al Gore, I'm freezing dammit!

Postby carsonfire on Fri Dec 25, 2009 10:33 pm

Should we take the silence as meaning that the Global Warmists in here are finally conceding, or is this one of the usual "biding our time until we cook up a new lie" periods?

Some environmental facts:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2 ... 025239.php
Lee Gerhard, geologist and reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, sums up the key scientific evidence with admirable brevity:

It is crucial that scientists are factually accurate when they do speak out, that they ignore media hype and maintain a clinical detachment from social or other agendas. There are facts and data that are ignored in the maelstrom of social and economic agendas swirling about Copenhagen. Greenhouse gases and their effects are well-known. Here are some of things we know:

• The most effective greenhouse gas is water vapor, comprising approximately 95 percent of the total greenhouse effect.

• Carbon dioxide concentration has been continually rising for nearly 100 years. It continues to rise, but carbon dioxide concentrations at present are near the lowest in geologic history.

• Temperature change correlation with carbon dioxide levels is not statistically significant.

• There are no data that definitively relate carbon dioxide levels to temperature changes.

• The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide logarithmically declines with increasing concentration. At present levels, any additional carbon dioxide can have very little effect.

We also know a lot about Earth temperature changes:

• Global temperature changes naturally all of the time, in both directions and at many scales of intensity.

• The warmest year in the U.S. in the last century was 1934, not 1998. The U.S. has the best and most extensive temperature records in the world.

• Global temperature peaked in 1998 on the current 60-80 year cycle, and has been episodically declining ever since. This cooling absolutely falsifies claims that human carbon dioxide emissions are a controlling factor in Earth temperature.

• Voluminous historic records demonstrate the Medieval Climate Optimum (MCO) was real and that the "hockey stick" graphic that attempted to deny that fact was at best bad science. The MCO was considerably warmer than the end of the 20th century.

• During the last 100 years, temperature has both risen and fallen, including the present cooling. All the changes in temperature of the last 100 years are in normal historic ranges, both in absolute value and, most importantly, rate of change.

Contrary to many public statements:

• Effects of temperature change are absolutely independent of the cause of the temperature change.

• Global hurricane, cyclonic and major storm activity is near 30-year lows. Any increase in cost of damages by storms is a product of increasing population density in vulnerable areas such as along the shores and property value inflation, not due to any increase in frequency or severity of storms.

• Polar bears have survived and thrived over periods of extreme cold and extreme warmth over hundreds of thousands of years extremes far in excess of modern temperature changes.

• The 2009 minimum Arctic ice extent was significantly larger than the previous two years. The 2009 Antarctic maximum ice extent was significantly above the 30-year average. There are only 30 years of records.

• Rate and magnitude of sea level changes observed during the last 100 years are within normal historical ranges. Current sea level rise is tiny and, at most, justifies a prediction of perhaps ten centimeters rise in this century.

The present climate debate is a classic conflict between data and computer programs. The computer programs are the source of concern over climate change and global warming, not the data. Data are measurements. Computer programs are artificial constructs.

Public announcements use a great deal of hyperbole and inflammatory language. For instance, the word "ever" is misused by media and in public pronouncements alike. It does not mean "in the last 20 years," or "the last 70 years." "Ever" means the last 4.5 billion years.

For example, some argue that the Arctic is melting, with the warmest-ever temperatures. One should ask, "How long is ever?" The answer is since 1979. And then ask, "Is it still warming?" The answer is unequivocally "No." Earth temperatures are cooling. Similarly, the word "unprecedented" cannot be legitimately used to describe any climate change in the last 8,000 years.



Cars, as always
User avatar
carsonfire
Keenspot Mac Daddy
 
Posts: 7772
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Small town, Texas

Re: Al Gore, I'm freezing dammit!

Postby VictorK on Fri Dec 25, 2009 10:54 pm

carsonfire wrote:Should we take the silence as meaning that the Global Warmists in here are finally conceding, or is this one of the usual "biding our time until we cook up a new lie" periods?


Sometimes it's just not worth it. As I've said before, this attack on global warming isn't aimed at facts or anything like that, it's an attack on how we make decisions itself. There's no fact or argument I can bring to this fight that would convince your or anyone else, you've already reached the conclusion you want. So, I'm not going to waste my time on it.
"The gods are not all powerful, they cannot erase the past."

-Agathon, printed in Ludo de Witte's "The Assassination of Lumumba"
User avatar
VictorK
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 2520
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 3:22 pm

Re: Al Gore, I'm freezing dammit!

Postby carsonfire on Sat Dec 26, 2009 1:03 am

Petulance. That comes under "biding our time".

Why is it always somebody else who has to change their behavior, VK? We find that your party is destroying the nation's economy, so why can't YOU accept the need to change? You've already got your mind made up about the way economics and everything else should be done, and nobody is going to make you change your mind, not for anything! Why is that? Why are you obsessed about everybody else conforming to YOUR way of thinking?

Oh, btw -- biggest snow in the DFW area for 80 years yesterday. Just sayin'. I look forward to the next Malthusian shift, which will probably be another ice age, or maybe back to the overcrowding, whatever you guys think you can use to force people to accept old, cockeyed, historically failed, claptrap politics.
Cars, as always
User avatar
carsonfire
Keenspot Mac Daddy
 
Posts: 7772
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Small town, Texas

Re: Al Gore, I'm freezing dammit!

Postby VictorK on Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:31 am

carsonfire wrote:Why are you obsessed about everybody else conforming to YOUR way of thinking?


This response shows a lack of real awareness of what's going on here. Why are you obsessed with everybody else conforming to your way of thinking, Carson? You might have several replies, all of which would be equally valid to excuse anything I'm doing. Maybe you're not trying to get everyone to believe what you're saying, you're just putting forward the argument. Maybe you feel the issue is so important that it's worth trying to get people to believe what you believe because it's essential for a good outcome.

Whatever the reason, no one on this board is 'obsessed' with making people 'conform' to their way of thinking. We're all engaged in persuasion, which is a different animal. No one has power over anyone else to coerce agreement, we can only make arguments. But for some reason when my side engages in that persuasion we're obsessed with making people conform to our way of thinking, to the point that it becomes a sinister exercise in coercion, but when you do the exact same thing (literally) it's harmless and benign.
"The gods are not all powerful, they cannot erase the past."

-Agathon, printed in Ludo de Witte's "The Assassination of Lumumba"
User avatar
VictorK
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 2520
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 3:22 pm

Re: Al Gore, I'm freezing dammit!

Postby Dave.gillam on Sat Dec 26, 2009 10:16 am

If you cannot refute any of the points listed prior (2 posts up) then it is persuasion, but unethically done.
The "flat earthers" wanted more study to prove these werent disasters of ignorance. We've found so far that they were exactly such. So why should we continue to pursue them, if we know them to be disasters?
Build a man a fire and he will be warm for one night. Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

Liberals believe conservatives are evil; Conservatives believe liberals are wrong.
User avatar
Dave.gillam
Keenspot Juggernaut
 
Posts: 3995
Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 1:31 pm
Location: Mishawaka IN

Re: Al Gore, I'm freezing dammit!

Postby Eiden on Sat Dec 26, 2009 12:21 pm

Dave.gillam wrote:If you cannot refute any of the points listed prior (2 posts up) then it is persuasion, but unethically done.


Oh no. Mind control!
Eiden
Grand Poobah Keenspotter
 
Posts: 461
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 9:01 am

Re: Al Gore, I'm freezing dammit!

Postby Dave.gillam on Sat Dec 26, 2009 1:18 pm

Eiden wrote:
Dave.gillam wrote:If you cannot refute any of the points listed prior (2 posts up) then it is persuasion, but unethically done.


Oh no. Mind control!

:roll:
Some education would do you wonders
Build a man a fire and he will be warm for one night. Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

Liberals believe conservatives are evil; Conservatives believe liberals are wrong.
User avatar
Dave.gillam
Keenspot Juggernaut
 
Posts: 3995
Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 1:31 pm
Location: Mishawaka IN

Re: Al Gore, I'm freezing dammit!

Postby carsonfire on Wed Jan 06, 2010 11:49 pm

Actually, I came back to this thread to gripe about how our temps here in Texas are supposed to be dropping into the teens tomorrow night, the lowest temps here in more than a decade.

But scrolling down, something caught my eye that didn't strike me before.

VictorK wrote:this attack on global warming isn't aimed at facts or anything like that


Look at the way VK put that. When we're talking about anything else bad that we want to *avoid*, do we say that?

How dare you attack the tsunami!
How dare you attack pedophilia!
How dare you attack racist lynchings!
How dare you attack forcing my thumbs through your eye sockets!

No, we don't say things like that. We don't generally get indignant about defending things that are BAD. VK used the structure of defending something good.

How dare you attack butterflies!
How dare you attack my comic book collection!
How dare you attack my cherished Malthusian doomsday fearmongering!

Even when we disagree about something bad happening, the person who thinks that bad thing is going to happen isn't going to say "how dare you attack the idea of the volcano over my house erupting," he's going to say "I hope you're right about that".

Have you heard one Global Warming supporter *ever* say that? "I hope you're right that the science is wrong and we'll avoid this doomsday scenario?" I'd bet anything that you haven't. And it's because this has nothing to do with something to be *avoided*. The fairy tale has to be protected like the butterfly or the comic book collection because it is something they cherish, need, and desire.
Cars, as always
User avatar
carsonfire
Keenspot Mac Daddy
 
Posts: 7772
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Small town, Texas

Re: Al Gore, I'm freezing dammit!

Postby VictorK on Thu Jan 07, 2010 8:56 am

carsonfire wrote:Have you heard one Global Warming supporter *ever* say that? "I hope you're right that the science is wrong and we'll avoid this doomsday scenario?" I'd bet anything that you haven't. And it's because this has nothing to do with something to be *avoided*. The fairy tale has to be protected like the butterfly or the comic book collection because it is something they cherish, need, and desire.


Only in your addled world of political conspiracies do we need scientists researching an issue to affirmatively say that they hope that they're wrong. It's implicit, there's a reason Al Gore called his movie An /Inconvenient/ Truth. No serious minded person wants global warming to be real, but we would be irresponsible if we let that desire to maintain the status quo get in the way of the evidence.
"The gods are not all powerful, they cannot erase the past."

-Agathon, printed in Ludo de Witte's "The Assassination of Lumumba"
User avatar
VictorK
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 2520
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 3:22 pm

Re: Al Gore, I'm freezing dammit!

Postby carsonfire on Thu Jan 07, 2010 10:11 am

VictorK wrote:Only in your addled world of political conspiracies do we need scientists researching an issue to affirmatively say that they hope that they're wrong. It's implicit, there's a reason Al Gore called his movie An /Inconvenient/ Truth. No serious minded person wants global warming to be real, but we would be irresponsible if we let that desire to maintain the status quo get in the way of the evidence.


I'm not talking about scientists dependent on millions upon millions of dollars in research funds, which hinge on keeping Global Warming alive, I'm talking about *you*.

There's a reason Al Gore called his movie/book An *Inconvenient* Truth. Al Gore, of course, is a politician and not a scientist, and his movie/book was reviewed by a panel in connection with a lawsuit for its adherence to fact, and multiple fabrications were identified. So that's, you know, kind of a crappy defense right there. :D

Normal person worried about a global catastrophe: "Oh, Al Gore lied about it? The Climategate emails show scientists faked data? Maybe we shouldn't panic about Global Warming just yet." You and other Global Warmists: "Don't you dare question our doomsday fable, dammit! It doesn't matter if Gore lied, it's called An Inconvenient TRUTH! Hurg! Submit to our insane Malthusian fairy tale OR ELSE!!!"

Finally, your last point is the defense I most expected: "No serious minded person wants global warming to be real, but we would be irresponsible if we let that desire to maintain the status quo get in the way of the evidence."

To identify your Freudian slip isn't to suggest you want Global Warming to be *real*. To the contrary, the existence of Global Warming to you and other Global Warmists is actually *irrelevant*. Let's be clear about this: your slip isn't that you reveal that you like the idea that Global Warming is coming; your slip reveals that you are in love with the concept. If a panel of the most respected scientists who ever lived found that it was all bunk, you'd still have a hard time letting go of it. You bristle even at the suggestion that a panel of respected scientists might find that it's all bunk.

You don't want Global Warming to happen. You want the concept of Global Warming for what you feel it will get you politically. I don't know if you necessarily know this consciously; but you like the idea of having a pretext to bully people to behave the way you prefer, instead of the way people would behave on their own.

The second part of that last defense is what's most important to you: eliminating what you perceive to be a "desire to maintain the status quo." We could ask you what you think the status quo is, but you would likely give the easy answer: pollution and other nastiness that most people oppose ANYWAY, things we don't really need a doomsday scenario as a prompt to work to fix.

Beyond pollution, what part of the status quo are you against? It's not as if the world isn't making progress. Making progress, in fact, is the status quo. Progress is the enemy of the Malthusian, which is why many of the scientists you follow rail against global trade and excess population, some even giving secret lectures about unleashing specialized viruses to reduce the population. You are the kind of people who see a crowd of people buying paper plates at Walmart and despair, because you are obsessed with thinking about the waste of every single plate. You don't deny yourself a paper plate necessarily, since you must survive, but you don't like the idea of so many other people consuming so much.

I get that, too. But when I get that thought, I am able to identify it as irrational, and I put it away. You and other Global Warmists -- including your ringleaders in the scientific community, who seem to have engineered a bogus "consensus" through a variety of fakery, bullying, and other tricks -- give in to that irrationality, because you do not entertain the thought you might be irrational about anything.

But I promise you. You are.
Cars, as always
User avatar
carsonfire
Keenspot Mac Daddy
 
Posts: 7772
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Small town, Texas

Re: Al Gore, I'm freezing dammit!

Postby carsonfire on Thu Jan 07, 2010 10:42 am

A review of Al Gore's extremely Convenient Lies:

http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/po ... AxNjNjMGI=

The British government decided that it would be a good idea to send copies of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth to all schools, with then Environment Secretary (now Foreign Secretary) David Miliband declaring that “the debate over science is over.” Well, it may be, but not in the way Gore portrays it. A truck driver and school governor, Stuart Dimmock, took the government to court, alleging that the film portrays “partisan political views,” the promotion of which is illegal in schools under the Education Act 1996.

The judge has decided that this is indeed the case and that the Government’s guidance notes that accompanied the film exacerbated the problem. For the film to be shown in schools, therefore, several facts would have to be drawn to students’ attention:

In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that 1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. 2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. 3.) Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.

The inaccuracies are:

* The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
* The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
* The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.
* The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.
* The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
* The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
* The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
* The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
* The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
* The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
* The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.


This is a far better result than refusing to allow the film to be shown at all. It requires that students be told by teachers that Al Gore is factually inaccurate, misleading and - in one case - making things up.



More recently, Al Gore claimed on TV that the interior of the earth is millions of degrees. And yet this is your appeal to authority?
Cars, as always
User avatar
carsonfire
Keenspot Mac Daddy
 
Posts: 7772
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Small town, Texas

Re: Al Gore, I'm freezing dammit!

Postby VictorK on Thu Jan 07, 2010 11:04 am

carsonfire wrote:You don't want Global Warming to happen. You want the concept of Global Warming for what you feel it will get you politically. I don't know if you necessarily know this consciously; but you like the idea of having a pretext to bully people to behave the way you prefer, instead of the way people would behave on their own.


And what do I get politically? Nothing about dealing with global climate change is popular. Governments don't want to deal with it, it costs a lot of money. What esoteric value is there to regulating CO2, do I have something against the gas itself? Absent a belief that global warming is real, regulation on industry to reduce CO2 doesn't get anyone anything without that belief.

Of course, as I've said before, it's likely too late to prevent climate change if it's going to happen anyway. We'd be better off abandoning this divisive quest to stop CO2 emissions since your side has won, our decision rule is completely destroyed, we will never trust science in politics again. The interests are too aligned against us, the truth is too inconvenient for governments around the world, who far from your prediction of embracing global warming in order to establish some kind of authoritarianism have balked at the costs of dealing with the problem. We're better off at prevention of the effects, now.
"The gods are not all powerful, they cannot erase the past."

-Agathon, printed in Ludo de Witte's "The Assassination of Lumumba"
User avatar
VictorK
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 2520
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 3:22 pm

Re: Al Gore, I'm freezing dammit!

Postby Dave.gillam on Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:09 pm

VictorK wrote:Of course, as I've said before, it's likely too late to prevent climate change if it's going to happen anyway. We'd be better off abandoning this divisive quest to stop CO2 emissions since your side has won, our decision rule is completely destroyed, we will never trust science in politics again. The interests are too aligned against us, the truth is too inconvenient for governments around the world, who far from your prediction of embracing global warming in order to establish some kind of authoritarianism have balked at the costs of dealing with the problem. We're better off at prevention of the effects, now.

We have proof of falsified evidence, lies (even the IPCC said Gore was wrong, when his movie was supposedly based on their findings) "cherry-picking" academic violation........

What science is left that hasnt been discredited?

As much as you try to hide it, this was always about Gore forcing through govt regulations that would make him rich, on the back of gullible partisan saps like yourself. Even other govts have come to the same conclusion, and the ones to deny it are bot the most polluting, and the ones trying to "force" payment from Western Society, with the full cooperation of Democrats.
Build a man a fire and he will be warm for one night. Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

Liberals believe conservatives are evil; Conservatives believe liberals are wrong.
User avatar
Dave.gillam
Keenspot Juggernaut
 
Posts: 3995
Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 1:31 pm
Location: Mishawaka IN

Re: Al Gore, I'm freezing dammit!

Postby carsonfire on Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:23 pm

VictorK wrote:Nothing about dealing with global climate change is popular.


BINGO!

The political demands couched in Global Warming are not popular. That's the whole point. The left pushes a particularly unpleasant, dehumanizing ideology that only looks humane on paper; enough people have experienced the real thing to know that when that ideology meets reality, poverty and misery and death result -- and that's not hyperbole. But the apparatchiks of your ideology do not accept the reality, because the intellectual arguments remain seductive for those who want to appear to be intellectual.

So unpopular is this ideology among sensible people, that you have to find ways to render them insensible. Which is why every decade or so, the left does indeed conspire and craft another Malthusian plot. We know that not because of some inexplicable fear of black helicopters, but because the left does indeed push a different Malthusian plot every decade or so. The pattern is too apparent.

Besides, we even know the names of some of the key players, some of the same "experts" who were behind the Population Bomb and the New Ice Age, two other debunked Malthusian plots. One of them was given a key appointment in the Obama administration! These purveyors of prior fakery -- why are they suddenly right this time, in the face of mounting evidence that they are once again wrong? Third time's the charm?
Cars, as always
User avatar
carsonfire
Keenspot Mac Daddy
 
Posts: 7772
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Small town, Texas

Re: Al Gore, I'm freezing dammit!

Postby carsonfire on Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:47 pm

Let me add -- a big problem with your presentation is that the left is not only behind the doomsday scenario, they're too quick to demand that the solution is submitting to their unpopular political demands (which you admit is unpopular).

That has been another common denominator with each of these Malthusian doomsday presentations: somehow, no matter what the crisis, the unpopular politics championed by the doomsayers (like Gore) are always the answer. There is no global catastrophe that is ever solved by capitalism or any other system that you don't like. The answer is always your unpopular ideology which, as you admit (with no little frustration, I'm sure) is unpopular.

If we were to face something like Global Warming seriously, it would be in a way to preserve the status quo that your ideology despises, which means that we would use capitalism to fund research and answers, instead of forcing poverty on everyone as some kind of token sacrifice to the gods.
Cars, as always
User avatar
carsonfire
Keenspot Mac Daddy
 
Posts: 7772
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Small town, Texas

Re: Al Gore, I'm freezing dammit!

Postby carsonfire on Sun Jan 17, 2010 12:10 pm

carsonfire wrote:These purveyors of prior fakery -- why are they suddenly right this time, in the face of mounting evidence that they are once again wrong? Third time's the charm?


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... 991177.ece
World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown

A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.

Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.

In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report.

It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.

Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was "speculation" and was not supported by any formal research. If confirmed it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research. The IPCC was set up precisely to ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change.

[...]

When finally published, the IPCC report did give its source as the WWF study but went further, suggesting the likelihood of the glaciers melting was "very high". The IPCC defines this as having a probability of greater than 90%.

The report read: "Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate."

However, glaciologists find such figures inherently ludicrous, pointing out that most Himalayan glaciers are hundreds of feet thick and could not melt fast enough to vanish by 2035 unless there was a huge global temperature rise. The maximum rate of decline in thickness seen in glaciers at the moment is 2-3 feet a year and most are far lower.


Supporters of Global Warming, because they convinced themselves that political consensus is science, are poised to become the biggest laughingstocks of the 21st century.
Cars, as always
User avatar
carsonfire
Keenspot Mac Daddy
 
Posts: 7772
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Small town, Texas

Re: Al Gore, I'm freezing dammit!

Postby carsonfire on Sun Jan 24, 2010 12:34 am

Getting worse and worse. Not only was this made up, it turns out that they KNEW it was made up -- and used it anyway, because they wanted the drama!

Because they knowingly used this fantasy to raise millions of dollars, some are already talking about criminal intent. Where once the left thought there was consensus, there may now be jail time.

Highlight in red from the original post, additional emphasis mine.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/23/b ... cy-makers/
The IPCC is now damaged goods. Pachauri is toast, and nobody will be able to cite the IPCC AR4 again without this being brought up.

The Daily Mail’s David Rose in the UK broke this story, it is mind boggling fraud to prod “government action” and grants. Emphasis in red mine.

From the Daily Mail

The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.

In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.

‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.’

[...]

Dr Lal’s admission will only add to the mounting furore over the melting glaciers assertion, which the IPCC was last week forced to withdraw because it has no scientific foundation.

According to the IPCC’s statement of principles, its role is ‘to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis, scientific, technical and socio-economic information – IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy’.

The claim that Himalayan glaciers are set to disappear by 2035 rests on two 1999 magazine interviews with glaciologist Syed Hasnain, which were then recycled without any further investigation in a 2005 report by the environmental campaign group WWF.
It was this report that Dr Lal and his team cited as their source.

The WWF article also contained a basic error in its arithmetic. A claim that one glacier was retreating at the alarming rate of 134 metres a year should in fact have said 23 metres – the authors had divided the total loss measured over 121 years by 21, not 121.

Last Friday, the WWF website posted a humiliating statement recognising the claim as ‘unsound’, and saying it ‘regrets any confusion caused’.

Dr Lal said: ‘We knew the WWF report with the 2035 date was “grey literature” [material not published in a peer-reviewed journal]. But it was never picked up by any of the authors in our working group, nor by any of the more than 500 external reviewers, by the governments to which it was sent, or by the final IPCC review editors.’

In fact, the 2035 melting date seems to have been plucked from thin air.
Cars, as always
User avatar
carsonfire
Keenspot Mac Daddy
 
Posts: 7772
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Small town, Texas

Re: Al Gore, I'm freezing dammit!

Postby carsonfire on Sun Jan 24, 2010 12:51 am

And worse and worse and worse...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... 000063.ece
UN wrongly linked global warming to natural disasters (Jonathan Leake, 1/24/10, Times of London)

THE United Nations climate science panel faces new controversy for wrongly linking global warming to an increase in the number and severity of natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods.

It based the claims on an unpublished report that had not been subjected to routine scientific scrutiny — and ignored warnings from scientific advisers that the evidence supporting the link too weak. The report's own authors later withdrew the claim because they felt the evidence was not strong enough.


Consensus!

Hey, Al Gore has a new book coming out on how to solve the Global Warming crisis. Wow, that's great timing, isn't it?

Breaking: the purge begins.
Cars, as always
User avatar
carsonfire
Keenspot Mac Daddy
 
Posts: 7772
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Small town, Texas

Re: Al Gore, I'm freezing dammit!

Postby carsonfire on Sun Jan 24, 2010 8:32 pm

Worse and worse and worse:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/24/t ... wf-papers/
...it turns out that the WWF is cited all over the IPCC AR4 report, and as you know, WWF does not produce peer reviewed science, they produce opinion papers in line with their vision. Yet IPCC’s rules are such that they are supposed to rely on peer reviewed science only. It appears they’ve violated that rule dozens of times, all under Pachauri’s watch.
Cars, as always
User avatar
carsonfire
Keenspot Mac Daddy
 
Posts: 7772
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Small town, Texas

 
Previous

Return to Winger

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron