The Great Global Warming Swindle

[speedy 0]

Quote

is a Type III denier

There are basically three types of Global Warming alarmists.

Type I - the climate is going to change dramatically in the next 20 years. The polar ice caps will melt, putting all coastal cities under water. There will be monster storms, floods, droughts and billions of people will starve.

When the scientists point out that the polar ice caps won't melt within the next 1000 years and the link between climate and weather is not well understood they turn to type II.

Type II - Of course it won't be a bad as Al Gore shows in his movie. But just 1 foot of sea level rises is enough to put millions of people under water. All the warming withing the last 200 years is directly attributal to mankind and it's emmision. Just small temperature increases can cause untold suffering.


Finally Type III alarmist - The climate is changing and changing faster than ever before. We can prove that CO2 does have a warming effect. Therefore we must reduce our CO2 emmission to give us more time to adapt. How a warmer climate will effect us if difficult to say - but why take the risk? Reducing our CO2 emmissions can't hurt.

Unless you fall into one of these three types you must be one of Billvons three types of deniers.

THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND!

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[rehmwa 2]

Doesn't it really seem like they are all Type I's and II's?

They just pretend to be Type III's to convince those they consider to be suboid semi-human ignorant rabble.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rushmc 23]

So, I post a link back to you that prints comments from a professor from MIT and you go silent.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,120]

> So, I post a link back to you that prints comments from a
>professor from MIT and you go silent.

Once again -

If YOU (that's Marc) have any comments about what he wrote I'd be happy to discuss them. I think he makes some good points about some things, is wrong on others. I'm not going to reply to his article point by point. I've done that before and it's a waste of time.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

I'm not going to reply to his article point by point. I've done that before and it's a waste of time.

But Bill, you do know that unless you repeat yourself endlessly to these deaf ears, the moment you stop they'll declare intellectual victory.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[rushmc 23]

Quote

> So, I post a link back to you that prints comments from a
>professor from MIT and you go silent.

Once again -

If YOU (that's Marc) have any comments about what he wrote I'd be happy to discuss them. I think he makes some good points about some things, is wrong on others. I'm not going to reply to his article point by point. I've done that before and it's a waste of time.

I did.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

By the way, I am not going away. I can and will change my mind should proper sceintific data gathering and results come to light. For now, I beleieve there is enough contrary info to continue the debate. You however, sem have made up your mind and have become closed to any new information. For a scientist/researcher, that seems a shame.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,120]

>I did.

So what are they? All you've said so far is "Carl Wunsch is stated to be at . . . very close to my views and where I am at." I'm not sure what that means.

Does that mean you agree with his views on climate change? Do you agree that "most scientists would assign a very high probability that human-induced change is already strongly present in the climate system?" Do you "believe that climate change is real, a major threat, and almost surely has a major human-induced component?" Do you believe "that global warming is both real and threatening?" Because that's his position, and you have, in the past, seemed to disagree.

[billvon 3,120]

>You however, sem have made up your mind and have become closed to any new information.

As I've said in the past, I have no problem changing my mind. Show me data that indicates the absorption bands of CO2 are different than what we assume, or that China has been in fact generating all its power with nuclear power, or that all US cars have a secret CO2-sequestering mechanism, and I'll agree that there's a flaw in the climate-change reasoning.

But until then, a show by the (as you describe them) drive-by media isn't going to change my mind, and a book by an economist is not going to 'prove global warming false' or any such nonsense. If you have been influenced by such sources, I can understand your confusion. You might as well be listening to the cigarette companies and trying to decide whether or not smoking is good for you.

[rushmc 23]

Found on Fox
There are links with in the article. Can be found here.
I await the destruction of the source tactic.

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,265607,00.html

Thursday , April 12, 2007

By Steven Milloy
ADVERTISEMENT
If you need further evidence that hysteria is outpacing science in the global warming debate, consider the study published this week about Northern Hemisphere forests actually causing significant global warming.

Researchers from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory reported in the "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences" (April 17) that while tropical forests exert a cooling influence on global climate, forests in northern regions exert a warming influence — and it’s not just a trivial climatic effect.

Based on the researchers’ computer modeling, forests above 20 degrees latitude in the Northern Hemisphere — that is, north of the line of latitude running through Southern Mexico, Saharan Africa, central India and the southernmost Chinese island of Hainan — will warm surface temperatures in those regions by an estimated 10 degrees Fahrenheit by the year 2100.

Most of the warming is predicted to occur north of 50 degrees latitude — that is, north of the line of latitude running just north of the U.S. border with Canada, through Northern France, Northern Mongolia and Southern Siberia.

As the researchers explained in their media release, forests affect climate in three different ways: they absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and evaporate water to the atmosphere (which increases cloudiness), both of which cool the planet.

Forests are dark and absorb sunlight (the “albedo” effect), warming the planet. In tropical forests, the net effect of these phenomena is cooling, while in Northern forests, the net effect is warming.

Although the media has largely ignored the study, it should give us plenty to think about.

First, it’s a stunning reminder that we still have a very steep learning curve when it comes to climate and how nature and man may impact it. In addition to this study, just over a year ago scientists discovered that plants emit as much as 30 percent of the annual global production of methane, the third most important greenhouse gas after water vapor and carbon dioxide.

Last fall, we learned that 5 years of cosmic ray activity could cause as much warming as 200 years of human greenhouse gas emissions.

It’s no wonder that alarmists want — and need — us to rush to judgment about manmade global warming before scientific discoveries dismantle their shaky polemic.

Next, the United Nations projects that global temperatures may rise anywhere from 2.5 to 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100. So exactly how does the 10-degree warming caused by Northern forests fit into the picture? Could Northern forests be a (the) major contributor to the supposed problem of global warming?

Then there are the eco-activist groups that have been spreading misinformation about Northern forests in their campaign against businesses that manufacture or sell products made from timber harvested from subarctic, or Boreal, forests.

ForestEthics, for example, claims that “Because the Boreal holds more carbon than any other terrestrial landscape, its conservation is imperative. Degrading the Boreal landscape threatens to transform the Boreal from one of the few healthy ‘lungs of the planet’ into a net climate destabilizer.”

Just last month, ForestEthics issued a report, “Robbing the Carbon Bank: Global Warming and Ontario’s Boreal Forest,” that alleged, “The logging of intact forests is one of Canada’s least recognized drivers of global warming.”

Having completely overlooked the albedo effect in its report, ForestEthics seems to have the net climate effect of Boreal forests exactly wrong. But this hasn’t stopped it from successfully attacking a variety of businesses for selling products made from Northern timber.

ForestEthics has browbeaten a long list of brand-conscious companies into commitments not to use timber from Northern forests including Apple Computer, Dell Computer, Federal Express, Hewlett-Packard, Home Depot, IKEA, Johnson & Johnson, Kinko’s, Lowe’s, Nike, Office Depot, Staples, Starbucks and many others.

ForestEthics’ most recent success came last December at the expense of Limited Brands, which was targeted with the group’s “Victoria’s Dirty Secret” campaign (Victoria Secret’s catalogues used paper made from Northern timber).

After caving in to ForestEthics, the Limited Brand’s Tom Katzemeyer said, “We’re hoping to raise the bar on the availability of environmentally friendly paper and pulp. …”

But how will Limited Brands’ “hope” ever overcome the Boreal’s albedo effect? If global warming is the dreaded catastrophe advertised by the enviros, then Northern forests hardly seem all that eco-friendly insofar as they may cause 10 degrees Fahrenheit of warming by 2100.

Finally, let’s not overlook the scam factor.

For years, global warming opportunists (aka “climateers”) urged consumers to compensate for their so-called “carbon footprints” by paying to plant trees. But as the facts slowly emerged about reforestation, the carbon-offset industry quietly backed off planting trees and moved on to other offset schemes.

One carbon-offset vendor, The Carbon Neutral Co., says on its Web site, “In those early days, the icon of a tree and its emotional appeal were critical to attract audiences. But, thankfully, the market has grown in sophistication — markedly over the last 4 years, and such obvious symbols are less necessary.”

Translation? Perhaps, “the facts have caught up with us and so we’ve changed shell games”?

Science is slowly, but similarly catching up with global warming alarmism. The only question is how the race will be won — with facts or fear?

Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and CSRWatch.com. He is a junk science expert, and advocate of free enterprise and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Respond to the Writer

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Gawain 0]

I was able to see some of the segments on YouTube, but not all of it was on there.

Quite an interesting piece.

Regardless of what the environment is doing, encouraging the development of more responsible industry I think could serve the global economy very well. Of course, the fringe doesn't want that, as they are against economic growth.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[narcimund 0]

Quote

There are links with in the article.

Do you know the difference between an "article" and an "editorial"?

Hint: Editorials begin with informal phrases like "If you need further evidence..."

They use explosive words with high emotional content like "hysteria", "stunning reminder", and "caving in".

In case that doesn't give you enough to identify editorials, pretty much anything in the popular news these days counts.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

There are links with in the article.

Do you know the difference between an "article" and an "editorial"?

Hint: Editorials begin with informal phrases like "If you need further evidence..."

They use explosive words with high emotional content like "hysteria", "stunning reminder", and "caving in".

In case that doesn't give you enough to identify editorials, pretty much anything in the popular news these days counts.

YES!!!!!!

Thanks for helping!!!!!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

There are links with in the article.

Do you know the difference between an "article" and an "editorial"?

Hint: Editorials begin with informal phrases like "If you need further evidence..."

They use explosive words with high emotional content like "hysteria", "stunning reminder", and "caving in".

In case that doesn't give you enough to identify editorials, pretty much anything in the popular news these days counts.

And we can add this to attitude!!!!!!

It’s no wonder that alarmists want — and need — us to rush to judgment about manmade global warming before scientific discoveries dismantle their shaky polemic.

More and more science (and scientists) question this issue. Time is running out!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[narcimund 0]

Quote

And we can add this to attitude!!!!!!

Pssst. Your coherence is waning.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[rushmc 23]

Ya, OK,

I love it when topics are ignored. I know then I am close

So, if you want to speak to content, we can discuss, until then, let the fun begin

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[narcimund 0]

Quote

I love it when topics are ignored. I know then I am close

You use all sorts of strange divinations to assure yourself you're right.

Here you're interpreting being ignored. In another thread you interpreted mockery as evidence that you were right. I offered this comment to you there. it's relevant again:

Quote

You keep citing that logic but it's very strange. Do you think exasperation on the other side always validates one's position?

The most wrong-headed idiots in the world get insulted all the time. I've got one of those who lives in a doorway near my home. He's an absolute moron who spouts ridiculous psychotic hyperbole and bullshit to all the passers-by. People say things back to him that aren't flattering. That must prove he's a sage.

Today on my way past that doorway he blithered at me about "damn chinamen" and something garbled about crystal meth and prostitutes and (I think) hockey. I ignored him.

That proves he's omniscient, right?

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

I love it when topics are ignored. I know then I am close

You use all sorts of strange divinations to assure yourself you're right.

Here you're interpreting being ignored. In another thread you interpreted mockery as evidence that you were right. I offered this comment to you there. it's relevant again:

Quote

You keep citing that logic but it's very strange. Do you think exasperation on the other side always validates one's position?

The most wrong-headed idiots in the world get insulted all the time. I've got one of those who lives in a doorway near my home. He's an absolute moron who spouts ridiculous psychotic hyperbole and bullshit to all the passers-by. People say things back to him that aren't flattering. That must prove he's a sage.

Today on my way past that doorway he blithered at me about "damn chinamen" and something garbled about crystal meth and prostitutes and (I think) hockey. I ignored him.

That proves he's omniscient, right?

OK, you dont like your own crap thrown back at you. I understand. Want to talk about the post or just insult the source and me?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[narcimund 0]

Quote

OK, you dont like your own crap thrown back at you. I understand. Want to talk about the post or just insult the source and me?

I have no interest in discussing this emotion-laden, populist editorial's content. It IS worthwhile to point out that its very form makes it useless, lest someone miss that and get bogged down in details. I might very well have saved someone from a doomed jerkoff session.

Your incessant posting and reposting of every vitriolic, pre-ordained anti-science, anti-planet rant is entertaining though. I admire billvon for trying so very hard to explain basic information to you.

In a way I also admire how persistently you fend it off. That's a talent in a way.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[NCclimber 0]

LOL This back-pedalling trash talk is quite amusing!


Thanks for your informed input about this article not really being an article. Were you saying writings that express opinions are not articles? If so, where'd you get your definition?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

OK, you dont like your own crap thrown back at you. I understand. Want to talk about the post or just insult the source and me?

I have no interest in discussing this emotion-laden, populist editorial's content. It IS worthwhile to point out that its very form makes it useless, lest someone miss that and get bogged down in details. I might very well have saved someone from a doomed jerkoff session.

Your incessant posting and reposting of every vitriolic, pre-ordained anti-science, anti-planet rant is entertaining though. I admire billvon for trying so very hard to explain basic information to you.

In a way I also admire how persistently you fend it off. That's a talent in a way.

Too bad you just described yourself.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,120]

>More and more science (and scientists) question this issue. Time is running out!

Indeed! Very soon we will PROVE that global warming is a big hoax, the Jews blew up the WTC, and evolution is a plot by secular humanists to destroy america. More and more "scientists" are coming around to the facts and rejecting the blowhard poindexter researchers who think nerdy science is more important than taking a courageous political stand.

[speedy 0]

Quote

>More and more science (and scientists) question this issue. Time is running out!

Indeed! Very soon we will PROVE that global warming is a big hoax, the Jews blew up the WTC, and evolution is a plot by secular humanists to destroy america. More and more "scientists" are coming around to the facts and rejecting the blowhard poindexter researchers who think nerdy science is more important than taking a courageous political stand.

So, Al Gore is right? we really will have 20 ft sea level rises and all the polar ice caps will melt before 2050?
If everyone paid attention to the nerdy science we would not have impending disaster.
The big hoax is not about whether the planet is warming, the hoax is about the effects it will have and that the piddling amount of CO2 emissions we could cut back on will make any difference at all.
The hoax is not the science, it's the politcal crap that is spouted about stronger more intense hurricanes, floods and drought. People in Scotland are lead to believe in 20 years they will have a tropical climate.
Better get used to less daylight, less time to skydive unless you want to do night jumps. The earth will start to spin faster due to.... you've guessed it, global warming.

Just like the theories the Jews blew up the world trade center, we now have a theory CO2 is going kill off mankind.

Just like some believe evolution is a plot by secular humanists to destroy america, some believe that if we reduce our CO2 emmisions we will stop the planet turning into an oven.

It's time we stopped all the alarmist crap and get back to reality.

Edited to add my cherry picking. Not that I think it proves anything

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[billvon 3,120]

>So, Al Gore is right? we really will have 20 ft sea level rises and all the
>polar ice caps will melt before 2050?

Will we eventually have 20ft sea level rises? Undoubtedly. The seas have been that high before and they will be again. Will all the ice melt at the North Pole? Eventually, for part of the year, yes. Will that all happen within 43 years? Impossible to say, since it depends a great deal on what we do and what else happens in the world. Unless we do something _really_ dumb, the things you list probably won't happen before 2100.

(BTW Gore didn't say "there will be 20 ft sea level rises before 2050" - that's a strawman.)

>If everyone paid attention to the nerdy science we would not have
>impending disaster.

I agree. But that's not interesting. Deniers feel the need to prove the science wrong to make their points, and alarmists feel the need to tell everyone they are about to die. Few people report on the more boring science involved. (In a society where Anna Nicole Smith gets far more coverage than the two wars we are currently fighting, no one's really interested in anything other than catastrophe.)

>The hoax is not the science, it's the politcal crap that is spouted about
>stronger more intense hurricanes, floods and drought.

?? That would be picking and choosing the science you want to believe in. "We're all going to die" is political crap. "Glacier X will be gone in Y years if the current trend continues, and this will cause the loss of rivers Z1 and Z2" is science. And we'd be fools to ignore that science because it's inconvenient. If we do, we will pay the price in human lives.

We can deal with the effects of global warming if we choose to, and we can mitigate them if we choose to. Both will be hideously expensive, but since we tend to try to save people who are dying, we will have to pay one way or the other. The one thing that will NOT work is to stick our fingers in our ears, say "I'm not listening! We need more research before I will believe anything!" and hope it all goes away. It won't.

>Better get used to less daylight, less time to skydive unless you want to
>do night jumps. The earth will start to spin faster due to.... you've
>guessed it, global warming.

Another strawman. No one is claiming there will be significant changes in the planet's rotation. (But it sure does make it sound like those "global warming" folks are idiots, eh?) I'll try the same thing:

"Geez, can you believe these deniers? They're all saying the climate isn't changing. Don't any of them own thermometers? Can you really trust _anything_ these people say?"

Strawman, and doesn't really help the discussion.

>It's time we stopped all the alarmist crap and get back to reality.

Agreed. But take a look out the window. Reality is what's happening, not what the deniers _wish_ was happening. We _are_ seeing big increases in CO2 due to human activities, and we _are_ seeing the climate change. We can deal with it now or later - but we will, eventually, have to deal with it.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>More and more science (and scientists) question this issue. Time is running out!

Indeed! Very soon we will PROVE that global warming is a big hoax, the Jews blew up the WTC, and evolution is a plot by secular humanists to destroy america. More and more "scientists" are coming around to the facts and rejecting the blowhard poindexter researchers who think nerdy science is more important than taking a courageous political stand.

Sorry, it is the other way. Time is running out on the "man is causing global warming" hoax. Insulting and labeling desenters to shut them up will not change that fact

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln