Founder of WeatherChannel: GLobal warming is greatest scam in History.

[jeffsquire]

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/JC_comments.doc

[rick3000]

This should be posted in the Lounge.


That is an interesting take on global warming. I skimmed it, but got the idea.
I agree it has been over hyped, my take on it is that the planet has been around a lot longer than we have, it will deal with us if we are hurting it, either with an ice age, or killing us all in some other fashion.

[simbob]

What a silly rant.

[Perfectlap]

I don't remember the last time I read the words "dastardaly scientist" in a non-fiction sentence.

[Topless]

It would be better if he could spell and didn't sound so much like a kook.

He is certainly right about many many "University PHD types" being cut off from the real world and desperately seeking recognition, grants, fellowships etc. He is probably right about the climate as well. It is clear from shrinking glacier evidence that our planet is warming. It is probable that humans are playing a role in this. It is also very probable that natural forces play a much greater role.

The planet Mars is experiencing similar global warming as the polar ice caps are now at the smallest size ever recorded in the last 100 years of observing. I don't think we can blame SUV's and diesel trucks, or even the Mars rover for this.

For further reading:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

[Brucelee]

I am going to move this to the Lounge.

BTW-If Hollywood is so upset about GW, why are they still wastings TONS of carbon on making the crap movies they make.

You mean to tell me this tripe HAS to be made, GW be damned?

Just a thought.

Ditto there homes in Malibu, Aspen, and New York.

[cvhs18472]

`I am glad that you are paying attention to your own rules( #4 ) But why does it have to be only when someone makes mention of the fact that the thread does not belong. If I talked drugs or street racing and no one else said anything could the thread continue?

[simbob]

If GW caused by carbon is such a real threat, shouldn't we be eliminating all nonesseential use of energy?

How is our failure to address the threat adequately relevant to the determination of the existence of the threat, the cause of the threat or the scope of the threat?

As to consensus, the use of the word is an understatement. The overwhelming weight of peer-reviewed scientific opinion indicates that human activity, particularly the burning of fossil fuels and the reduction of the rain forests, has dramatically increased the concentrations of CO2 and ozone in the atmosphere, reduced their re-processing and accelerated the warming of the planet. The existence of natural cycles does not refute the reality of our actions or of their effect.

Could the scientists be wrong? Sure.

But they're less likely to be wrong than a cranky guy who's got an audience for his opinions because he got rich selling storm stories. His is a flat-earth argument of conclusions for which he offers no support other than his prejudices.

[Dr. Kill]

Originally Posted by simbob

[I] the burning of fossil fuels and the reduction of the rain forests, has dramatically increased the concentrations of CO2 and ozone in the atmosphere

Wait, I thought that all us humans had put a hole in the ozone layer. Isn't that why we have to wear big hats when we go outside now?

[Dr. Kill]

Originally Posted by simbob

How is our failure to address the threat adequately relevant to the determination of the existence of the threat, the cause of the threat or the scope of the threat?

Good point

Originally Posted by simbob

As to consensus, the use of the word is an understatement. The overwhelming weight of peer-reviewed scientific opinion indicates that human activity, particularly the burning of fossil fuels and the reduction of the rain forests, has dramatically increased the concentrations of CO2 and ozone in the atmosphere, reduced their re-processing and accelerated the warming of the planet.

The first part your paragraph is understandable to me, but I am getting lost toward the end. We can empirically prove that temperature is either rising or not, and we can empirically prove that we are producing some amount of CO2. What I don’t understand at this point is how we know that the two events are linked.

Originally Posted by simbob

The existence of natural cycles does not refute the reality of our actions or of their effect.

It does though if it proves the relationship between man’s CO2 output and global warming is a spurious one.

[Allen K. Littlefield]

[ Since the temp on the other planets in our system seem to be also rising due to increased sun activity, why the need to reject the most plausible answer for blind faith in a political movement to keep us under more control and dependency and increase our taxes? The religious quality of this faith in a political agenda that robs one of freedom and will reject any counter debate is telling in its own right. This is a SCAM my Boxster driving friends and soon you may not be able to afford the fuel to drive your car as we cannot drill for our own oil etc. Could the "Political Scientists" be wrong? Sure!!!!!!

AKL

Could the scientists be wrong? Sure.

But they're less likely to be wrong than a cranky guy who's got an audience for his opinions because he got rich selling storm stories. His is a flat-earth argument of conclusions for which he offers no support other than his prejudices.[/QUOTE]

[brp987]

Allen - Can you quantify the effect on earth of this supposed increase in solar activity and demonstrate that it is more significant than other man-made or natural phenomena? Or is this your particular blind faith?

Regardless of the ultimate effects and causes of GW, worldwide demand and use of carbon is increasing and will continue until it is too expensive, because it's the cheapest thing out there. The chips will fall where they may.

[Brucelee]

Originally Posted by brp987

Allen - Can you quantify the effect on earth of this supposed increase in solar activity and demonstrate that it is more significant than other man-made or natural phenomena? Or is this your particular blind faith?

Regardless of the ultimate effects and causes of GW, worldwide demand and use of carbon is increasing and will continue until it is too expensive, because it's the cheapest thing out there. The chips will fall where they may.

I guess I don't get your point. The use of carbon based energy is on the increase because it increases livability everywhere it is applied. However, you are correct that the price will increase if demand exceeds supply.

Hence the search for substitues.

It is called Economics.

[simbob]

Isn't that the way science is supposed to work?

How is Mr. Weather Channel's screed science? He doesn't cite any support for his conclusions other than his presumption of conflicts of interest among the unnamed scientists whom he accuses of perpetrating the alleged "scam." This rant is classic demagoguery.

You ever notice that when someone doubts the GW theory of the day, they are immediately demonized, no matter what their credentials.

Demonize a demonizer? What are his credentials? If "founder of the weather channel" is all he's got, then he's got nothing. Even if he has other credentials, he still has offered nothing in this rant but accusations and conclusions. Where's the science?

It's called Economics.

Ah. Mr. Market. The Invisible Hand. Let's all trust Economics.

Economics is the collective result of individual decisions made in the pursuit of short-term personal advantage without consideration of either the effect on other individuals or the long-term consequences on society or humanity.

Slavery, child labor, heedless depletion of resources and pollution. There's plenty of evidence in history that economics should not be trusted as a motivation for public policy or as the mechanism for its implementation.

You're right that peoples' desire for the easy increase of "livability" from buring fossil fuels is Economics. But the "price" of long-term effects, including self-destruction, isn't part of the equation. If we wait to find alternatives until the economic price is too high, will the price threshhold of self-destruction already have been crossed?

That's the intersection where real science and public policy meet in rational government.

[Allen K. Littlefield]

Originally Posted by brp987

Allen - Can you quantify the effect on earth of this supposed increase in solar activity and demonstrate that it is more significant than other man-made or natural phenomena? Or is this your particular blind faith?

Regardless of the ultimate effects and causes of GW, worldwide demand and use of carbon is increasing and will continue until it is too expensive, because it's the cheapest thing out there. The chips will fall where they may.

Well let's see concerning my "blind faith". Science up to this point in time has pointed out through geology etc. that the planet has warmed and cooled through out its history. We had a mile of ice over where I am sitting right now and it is no longer here. It melted way before we had American Capitalisim. So something happend other than free citizens driving their mini vans, SUVs or Boxsters. Since the ice cap is retreating on Mars and the other planets seem to be warming, according to astronomers and other scientists, and the sun seems to be getting larger and more active I would first consider that as a reason other than nasty old freedom and consumption. Since Mr. Sun is the source of all energy, be it stored in coal, oil etc. I would first suspect that maybe that is the ongoing cause of natural climate change over the centuries. Certainly there is no evidence to run off and create legislation that further taxes us and destroys our economy until we know for sure we are causing this 'change'. I am old enough to remember the same argument for the oncoming ice age back a few years ago, a disaster promoted by the same media that does it today for GW. If you call that blind faith then I guess you have blind faith in "political science" that is promoting this scam. Does it not bother you that NO contrary debate or evidence is tolerated? That should be the big tip off itself. So no, I don't believe we are causing what has been naturally happening since the beginning of time. The question remains, why do you?

AKL

You guys don't know crap. Al Gore said global warming exists so it does. Gore is the greatest scientific mind of our time. He was the VP of the USA and won a Nobel Piece Prize. What have you guys ever done? Drive your Porsche's? We cannot deny a genius like Gore.

[brp987]

If you call that blind faith then I guess you have blind faith in "political science" that is promoting this scam. Does it not bother you that NO contrary debate or evidence is tolerated? That should be the big tip off itself. So no, I don't believe we are causing what has been naturally happening since the beginning of time. The question remains, why do you?

Did you write Jerry Falwells "Handy Dandy Pocket Evolution Refuter"? It's pretty easy to throw a few facts together and draw a conclusion. Proving it is the hard part. It sure would be nice if science worked this way rather than having to exhaustively analyze reams of conflicting data to extract the underlying truth, and have that truth point you in another direction. So, you may believe your conclusion, but it has no valid scientific basis insofar as it being quantifiable or predictive.

As far as my having blind faith in "political science" - I'm a chemist, work as a programmer. I don't believe in such thing as "political science", or christian science, much less having blind faith in it, or anything else. And I welcome all valid scientific explanations for GW. Contrary? Contrary to what?

But yeah, let's enjoy our boxsters. No more blather from me about this - promise.

[Brucelee]

Originally Posted by Allen K. Littlefield

[ Since the temp on the other planets in our system seem to be also rising due to increased sun activity, why the need to reject the most plausible answer for blind faith in a political movement to keep us under more control and dependency and increase our taxes? The religious quality of this faith in a political agenda that robs one of freedom and will reject any counter debate is telling in its own right. This is a SCAM my Boxster driving friends and soon you may not be able to afford the fuel to drive your car as we cannot drill for our own oil etc. Could the "Political Scientists" be wrong? Sure!!!!!!

AKL

Could the scientists be wrong? Sure.

But they're less likely to be wrong than a cranky guy who's got an audience for his opinions because he got rich selling storm stories. His is a flat-earth argument of conclusions for which he offers no support other than his prejudices.

[/QUOTE]



You ever notice that when someone doubts the GW theory of the day, they are immediately demonized, no matter what their credentials.

Interesting how that works.

Scientists from MIT and Harvard are actually called names because they point out holes in the theory.

Isn't that the way science is supposed to work?