PDA

View Full Version : More on the Man-Made Global Warming Hoax.


Qdrop
08-05-2007, 06:43 AM
is Hoax too strong of a word? I used to think so. But after a lot of reading from both sides, I'm really starting to think the claim of man-made global warming and a "coming catastrophe" are not only wrong, they are virtually "manufactured" lies....the very claim that greens have made against the "global warming deniers"

some food for thought:

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34939.html

Two Sides to Global Warming
Is it proven fact, or just conventional wisdom?

- a good article written nearly 3 years ago that got me thinking that global warming skeptics have a valid claim. And this article stays true to this day.

more recent:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9082151

'Global Warming Is Not a Crisis'
from the live radio debate. take a listen

at the end of the debate, both the audience and NPR gave the Global Warming skeptics the "victory".


and of course:
http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/
The Great Global Warming Swindle"


I know the bashing will now begin, this being a 99% liberal board. But just remember, there are 2 sides to everything.
Think for yourself, and don't be afraid to go against the herd.

kaiser soze
08-05-2007, 08:41 AM
I'm convinced you're a lobbyist for an aerosol company

Many who believe and have argued that man's contribution to global warming do not think the earth will flash fire like a match head and fry up, but rather create weather anomalies in regions that will affect man, animal, and land alike.

Anyways, here are some websites concerning desertification (both natural and man made) and it's effects on climate change/warming.....

Desertification and Climate change

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/tiempo/floor0/archive/issue09/t9art1.htm

Desertification and it's causes

http://www.fao.org/docrep/X5321E/x5321e04.htm

Desertification in Arid Lands

http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/docs/002-193/002-193.html

China Faces Challenge of Desertification

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/english/200109/01/eng20010901_79027.html

Deforestation and desertification

http://www.munfw.org/archive/45th/csd1.htm

DroppinScience
08-05-2007, 08:37 PM
:rolleyes:

mikizee
08-06-2007, 12:58 AM
Australian of the Year, Professor Tim Flannery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Flannery), is a big advocate of the dangers of global warming. He knows what he's talking about, he has dedicated decades to the subject.

I tend to trust what he is telling us. Hey Qdrop, are you a professor? Unless you are, I think I'll sit on his side of the fence.

QueenAdrock
08-06-2007, 11:58 AM
MY GOD, IT IS A HOAX!

*gasses up SUV, drives around for a few hours*

Eat my fumes, America!

yeahwho
08-06-2007, 01:02 PM
You do know that your first link to Ron Baily is dated 2004, he has always been suspect by not only reasonable rational adults, but also his peers and the mainstream media in general.

That being said he also has changed his position and now believes that human CO2 emissions have created an accelerated warming on planet earth, where we are currently residing. Come join us Qdrop.

Ronald Baily (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/01/ronald_bailey_n.php)

Qdrop
08-06-2007, 03:27 PM
That being said he also has changed his position and now believes that human CO2 emissions have created an accelerated warming on planet earth, where we are currently residing. Come join us Qdrop.

Ronald Baily (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/01/ronald_bailey_n.php)

did you read this "recant" article in Reason from 2005?

"Christy notes, "If you want to say model trends are bolstered, you must remember model trends are all over the map. Which trend is bolstered? Perhaps you want to say those model trends less than 0.2 C per decade are bolstered." Right now the available data sets appear to strengthen the case for arguing that the lower-end model projections for future temperature increases are more likely ones. Christy concludes, "The new warming trend is still well below ideas of dramatic or catastrophic warming."

his only realy "flip flop" is that he now agrees the earth IS warming...which many people do on both sides of the fence.
the question is: is it man-made global warming or natural?
and how much warming is going to take place? what actual effects will it have?


nice try yeawhooter.

yeahwho
08-07-2007, 12:53 AM
did you read this "recant" article in Reason from 2005?

"Christy notes, "If you want to say model trends are bolstered, you must remember model trends are all over the map. Which trend is bolstered? Perhaps you want to say those model trends less than 0.2 C per decade are bolstered." Right now the available data sets appear to strengthen the case for arguing that the lower-end model projections for future temperature increases are more likely ones. Christy concludes, "The new warming trend is still well below ideas of dramatic or catastrophic warming."

his only realy "flip flop" is that he now agrees the earth IS warming...which many people do on both sides of the fence.
the question is: is it man-made global warming or natural?
and how much warming is going to take place? what actual effects will it have?


nice try yeawhooter.

Who the fuck is Ronald Bailey? Your hinging your whole "Global Warming Hoax" theory on what this guy has edited and written for various news organizations? I don't get it. Here is Ronald Bailey's credentials;

Ronald Bailey (born November 23, 1953) is the science editor for Reason magazine. He was born and raised in Washington County, Virginia, and attended the University of Virginia, where he earned a B.A. in philosophy and economics in 1976. He attended the University of Virginia School of Law for three semesters. then this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Bailey)

He is not a scientist, he is not an expert and he is definitely unsure of many things happening right now.

His opinion is just that, an opinion. I'm happy that you've banked the future of the planet on somebody who distrusts those who are scientists.

What is it about your fear that maybe Global Warming is a scam? I don't understand the motive. Are you trying to stop all of us from falling into some bizarre trap where we conserve too much? Do you have kainotophobia? Are we going to be suckered into using less to save the world?

Why are you so frightened of what is generally accepted by most every major corporation in your own country? By Federal, State and Local levels of government?

Are you afraid science has become too powerful? They've corrupted themselves? I have a hard time believing a guy as mediocre as Ronald Bailey could motivate someone as seemingly bright as you to call Global Warming a hoax.

Qdrop
08-07-2007, 09:35 AM
Who the fuck is Ronald Bailey? Your hinging your whole "Global Warming Hoax" theory on what this guy has edited and written for various news organizations? I don't get it. Here is Ronald Bailey's credentials;

Ronald Bailey (born November 23, 1953) is the science editor for Reason magazine. He was born and raised in Washington County, Virginia, and attended the University of Virginia, where he earned a B.A. in philosophy and economics in 1976. He attended the University of Virginia School of Law for three semesters. then this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Bailey)

He is not a scientist, he is not an expert and he is definitely unsure of many things happening right now.
well he's not a scientist, no....and neither are you...or I.
but we each have the ability to weed out bullshit....and I think Bailey's credentials, particularly in law, leave him with a good concept of deciphering BS from facts.

if only scientist can comment....then you can't comment either. you can only silently bask in the warm glow of green scientists and say nothing.
environmentalism sounds more and more like a religion every day.

His opinion is just that, an opinion. I'm happy that you've banked the future of the planet on somebody who distrusts those who are scientists. he, like I, do not distrust all scientists. but scientists are human, and humans are flawed...and are prone to agendas, peer-pressure, greed (on BOTH sides), bias, etc.

it's difficult trying to decipher who's the real deal, who's being bought, and who is just fooling themselves.

What is it about your fear that maybe Global Warming is a scam? I think some elements of it do come across as scam...I'd stop short of conspiracy, though.
I don't understand the motive. whoever controls the worlds energy, controls the world. simple concept. It's easy to say that it's clearly the conservative right and and the big business that are trying to control it all...but that's only half the story. Many of the underlying ideals behind Kyoto and the IPCC, even the UN, etc....are to socialize energy rations on a GLOBAL scale. this is quoted right from their own literature and reports.
can you imagine the UN controlling all energy rationing for the globe? they would literally be a world government.
Europe, in particular is not simply calling for national or euorpean controls over energy rations (well only at first), but for global control under the UN or some other created entity.
scary shit, huh? They have so much to gain by this obviously....how can you say that every report and study that the left, the IPCC and the UN release are in no way self serving and are simply full of angelic light?

Are you trying to stop all of us from falling into some bizarre trap where we conserve too much? no, just a trap where some huge global entity tells you how long you can have your reading lamp on for....cause we gotta SAVE THE WHALES!...or the GLOBE....or [insert some liberal global cause here]

Why are you so frightened of what is generally accepted by most every major corporation in your own country? By Federal, State and Local levels of government? generally accepted? are you using "general acceptance" in America as a debate point?
we generally accept religion, and Paris Hilton, and E! Television...

Are you afraid science has become too powerful? too political.

BeticoCM
08-07-2007, 11:01 AM
science is becoming too political? wtf are you talking about?
oh and the bullshit about having two sides to every story, wtf? yeah, the right one and the wrong one in this case.

yeahwho
08-07-2007, 04:28 PM
well he's not a scientist, no....and neither are you...or I.
but we each have the ability to weed out bullshit....and I think Bailey's credentials, particularly in law, leave him with a good concept of deciphering BS from facts.

if only scientist can comment....then you can't comment either. you can only silently bask in the warm glow of green scientists and say nothing.
environmentalism sounds more and more like a religion every day.

No we're not scientists, so the difference is I like to read what scientists have to say about the effects of CO2 warming earth. Since this is what they live for, scientific discovery, they have traveled a completely different path than Ronald Bailey.

Anyone can comment, the faith-based movement that propelled GWB into office now listen only those who tell them the what the White House is willing to part with. I agree religion is fucking scary seven ways from Wednesday.

he, like I, do not distrust all scientists. but scientists are human, and humans are flawed...and are prone to agendas, peer-pressure, greed (on BOTH sides), bias, etc.

it's difficult trying to decipher who's the real deal, who's being bought, and who is just fooling themselves.

I haven't found it all that difficult. This isn't brain surgery. It's not a mania or hype job. The reports and physical evidence just keep piling up and knocking on our doorstep.

whoever controls the worlds energy, controls the world. simple concept. It's easy to say that it's clearly the conservative right and and the big business that are trying to control it all...but that's only half the story. Many of the underlying ideals behind Kyoto and the IPCC, even the UN, etc....are to socialize energy rations on a GLOBAL scale. this is quoted right from their own literature and reports.
can you imagine the UN controlling all energy rationing for the globe? they would literally be a world government.
Europe, in particular is not simply calling for national or euorpean controls over energy rations (well only at first), but for global control under the UN or some other created entity.
scary shit, huh? They have so much to gain by this obviously....how can you say that every report and study that the left, the IPCC and the UN release are in no way self serving and are simply full of angelic light?

The "global warming is a scam that some are trying to get rich on" argument baffles me.

Scientists, government agencys and environmental groups advocate mitigation because of what the research shows. They want to plan for the future and avoid potential disaster. There is no profit motive in that.

On the other hand, businesses that might have to cut back on pollution or manufacture more efficient machines have short term profits as a motive to fight against mitigation efforts.

There might be a shyster out there that is trying to sell a carbon transmorgifier — get yours now for only 19.99 !!
Of course there are opportunistic politicians out jumping on the bandwagon to get a few votes.

But to argue that 105 nations endorsed this report because they stand to make money off of it and gain power, seems ludicrous to me.

too political? the ones who politicize the findings aren't the scientists. That's left up to tools like Ronald Bailey and Al Gore.

Schmeltz
08-08-2007, 10:41 PM
Qdrop, if you want to wax eloquent about bullshit conspiracy theories, I suggest commiserating with Calros in the 9/11 thread. Your silly, feeble protestations about the "religion" espoused by the actual experts who perform this research will find a welcome audience there, I imagine.

bigboy7787
08-10-2007, 05:35 AM
We have Al Gore telling us not to own an SUV. The only problem is that Al Gore has a bigger Carbon Footprint than most of us.


MY GOD, IT IS A HOAX!

*gasses up SUV, drives around for a few hours*

Eat my fumes, America!

BeticoCM
08-10-2007, 08:21 AM
We have Al Gore telling us not to own an SUV. The only problem is that Al Gore has a bigger Carbon Footprint than most of us.

so? dont get so stuck on the messenger, focus on the message. thx. i'm an atheist but the 'false idols' thing rings so true.