Global Warming Fear Religion

[Channman 2]

The poor old Scandinavian moose is now being blamed for climate change, with researchers in Norway claiming that a grown moose can produce 2,100 kilos of methane a year -- equivalent to the CO2 output resulting from a 13,000 kilometer car journey.

Norway is concerned that its national animal, the moose, is harming the climate by emitting an estimated 2,100 kilos of carbon dioxide a year through its belching and farting.

Norwegian newspapers, citing research from Norway's technical university, said a motorist would have to drive 13,000 kilometers in a car to emit as much CO2 as a moose does in a year.

Bacteria in a moose's stomach create methane gas which is considered even more destructive to the environment than carbon dioxide gas.

Norway has some 120,000 moose but an estimated 35,000 are expected to be killed in this year's moose hunting season, which starts on September 25, Norwegian newspaper VG reported.

As a personal note, is the killing of 35,000 mommy and Daddy mooses Norway's method of providing a carbon offset?

This is just on of many reasons it so hard for me to take the GW Fear Religion seriously. But I will admit they can be a source of humor.

I'm just a little fella trying to make since of it all, bunch of wacko GWarmers farting everywhere, whats up with that.

[NCclimber 0]

Hey Rocky,

Watch me rip a fart out of my ass.

[Loonix 0]

If you want to compare with religion, it's the "there's no human-caused global warming" people that are the religious ones. Science vs. religion, you know.

...and don't read to much into that article. norwegians aren't taking it seriously either.

[billvon 3,116]

>it's the "there's no human-caused global warming" people that are the religious ones.

Not just a religion, but an organized one.
-----------
The Truth About Denial

Global-Warming Deniers: A Well-Funded Machine

Sharon Begley

Aug. 13, 2007 issue - Sen. Barbara Boxer had been chair of the Senate's Environment Committee for less than a month when the verdict landed last February. "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal," concluded a report by 600 scientists from governments, academia, green groups and businesses in 40 countries. Worse, there was now at least a 90 percent likelihood that the release of greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels is causing longer droughts, more flood-causing downpours and worse heat waves, way up from earlier studies. Those who doubt the reality of human-caused climate change have spent decades disputing that. But Boxer figured that with "the overwhelming science out there, the deniers' days were numbered." As she left a meeting with the head of the international climate panel, however, a staffer had some news for her. A conservative think tank long funded by ExxonMobil, she told Boxer, had offered scientists $10,000 to write articles undercutting the new report and the computer-based climate models it is based on. "I realized," says Boxer, "there was a movement behind this that just wasn't giving up."

. . .

Outside Hollywood, Manhattan and other habitats of the chattering classes, the denial machine is running at full throttle—and continuing to shape both government policy and public opinion.

Since the late 1980s, this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change. Through advertisements, op-eds, lobbying and media attention, greenhouse doubters (they hate being called deniers) argued first that the world is not warming; measurements indicating otherwise are flawed, they said. Then they claimed that any warming is natural, not caused by human activities. Now they contend that the looming warming will be minuscule and harmless. "They patterned what they did after the tobacco industry," says former senator Tim Wirth, who spearheaded environmental issues as an under secretary of State in the Clinton administration. "Both figured, sow enough doubt, call the science uncertain and in dispute. That's had a huge impact on both the public and Congress."
--------------------

[mnealtx 0]

600 scientists... all using bad data. I'd like to see how their projections change (if they do) with the updated data.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>it's the "there's no human-caused global warming" people that are the religious ones.

Not just a religion, but an organized one.
-----------
The Truth About Denial

Global-Warming Deniers: A Well-Funded Machine

Sharon Begley

Aug. 13, 2007 issue - Sen. Barbara Boxer had been chair of the Senate's Environment Committee for less than a month when the verdict landed last February. "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal," concluded a report by 600 scientists from governments, academia, green groups and businesses in 40 countries. Worse, there was now at least a 90 percent likelihood that the release of greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels is causing longer droughts, more flood-causing downpours and worse heat waves, way up from earlier studies. Those who doubt the reality of human-caused climate change have spent decades disputing that. But Boxer figured that with "the overwhelming science out there, the deniers' days were numbered." As she left a meeting with the head of the international climate panel, however, a staffer had some news for her. A conservative think tank long funded by ExxonMobil, she told Boxer, had offered scientists $10,000 to write articles undercutting the new report and the computer-based climate models it is based on. "I realized," says Boxer, "there was a movement behind this that just wasn't giving up."

. . .

Outside Hollywood, Manhattan and other habitats of the chattering classes, the denial machine is running at full throttle—and continuing to shape both government policy and public opinion.

Since the late 1980s, this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change. Through advertisements, op-eds, lobbying and media attention, greenhouse doubters (they hate being called deniers) argued first that the world is not warming; measurements indicating otherwise are flawed, they said. Then they claimed that any warming is natural, not caused by human activities. Now they contend that the looming warming will be minuscule and harmless. "They patterned what they did after the tobacco industry," says former senator Tim Wirth, who spearheaded environmental issues as an under secretary of State in the Clinton administration. "Both figured, sow enough doubt, call the science uncertain and in dispute. That's had a huge impact on both the public and Congress."
--------------------

Denial Machine? Or just commons sense people who are not afraid to voice opinions based on data?

And Barb Boxer??? I put her right up there Willian Jefferson, Democrate Louisiana.

"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 3,116]

>I'd like to see how their projections change (if they do) with the updated data.

The GISS data? Take a look at the two graphs I posted. They're still basically identical. We're talking about an error of a few hundredths of a degree.

The hysterics over the GISS data error is equivalent to a homeowner saying "check this out! The bank says I owe $311,493.33 on my mortgage, and according to MY calculations I owe $311,494.01! Clearly, then, I owe nothing."

Good summary here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/1934-and-all-that/

[1969912 0]

Quote

contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry

Sounds like a rough crowd.

.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[billvon 3,116]

>Or just commons sense people who are not afraid to voice opinions based on data?

The people voicing opinions based on data are generally scientists. People voicing opinions based on politics are generally deniers.

Easy test - if their discussion involves a lot of climactic data, they're probably scientists, and scientists generally agree on the mechanisms of global warming (as did the scientist in the article you posted.) If their discussion involves a lot of stuff about religion, and politicians, and popular opinion, and objections along the lines of "we're smart too!" they're probably deniers. (Or alarmists, of course.)

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

>it's the "there's no human-caused global warming" people that are the religious ones.

Not just a religion, but an organized one.
-----------
The Truth About Denial

Global-Warming Deniers: A Well-Funded Machine

Sharon Begley

Aug. 13, 2007 issue - Sen. Barbara Boxer had been chair of the Senate's Environment Committee for less than a month when the verdict ."

It's like deja vu all over again.

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2919867#2919867

[Channman 2]

Quote

>Or just commons sense people who are not afraid to voice opinions based on data?

The people voicing opinions based on data are generally scientists. People voicing opinions based on politics are generally deniers.

Easy test - if their discussion involves a lot of climactic data, they're probably scientists, and scientists generally agree on the mechanisms of global warming (as did the scientist in the article you posted.) If their discussion involves a lot of stuff about religion, and politicians, and popular opinion, and objections along the lines of "we're smart too!" they're probably deniers. (Or alarmists, of course.)

I will admit, I'm not a believer in the GW issue as currently being protrade in the media. I must however admit its pretty hot in Houston this afternoon but I do remember hotter days as a young lad.

> (Or alarmists, of course.)

Alarmist does that apply to folks like myself i.e. a denier, the GW crowd or both?

[billvon 3,116]

>Alarmist does that apply to folks like myself i.e. a denier, the GW crowd or both?

Depends. Deniers are characterized by their denials of climate change research. Alarmists are characterized by their desire for people to be alarmed about climate change. Both are political positions.

[Amazon 7]

I still think Global warming is happening...just from what I have observed during my lifetime.

That being said.. I will continue to help it along where I can...that way the deniers can live in the world they deserve in the future.

AT least the Quad got better milage than the boat when I went fishing on MacGregor

Just doing my part Bill

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Or just commons sense people who are not afraid to voice opinions based on data?

The people voicing opinions based on data are generally scientists. People voicing opinions based on politics are generally deniers.

Easy test - if their discussion involves a lot of climactic data, they're probably scientists, and scientists generally agree on the mechanisms of global warming (as did the scientist in the article you posted.) If their discussion involves a lot of stuff about religion, and politicians, and popular opinion, and objections along the lines of "we're smart too!" they're probably deniers. (Or alarmists, of course.)

Prove it.

You are saying only those who support man made climate change have data. Yet many posts here have taken the same data and disagreed with those conclusions . So, only the pro-man made global warming crowd has the smarts to interpet data? The only research scientists with any credibility on the side of man made global warming?

You are on a roll now Bill

I'll take your 600 so called experts and counter then with Spencer anytime

"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 3,116]

>You are saying only those who support man made climate change have
>data. Yet many posts here have taken the same data and disagreed with
>those conclusions.

Yes. Few people here are scientists, and the majority of people here post political opinions over data. (No surprise; that's why we created this forum, so politics had a place to go.)

>So, only the pro-man made global warming crowd has the smarts to
>interpet data?

Nope, you miss the point. The "pro-man-made global warming crowd" is a political crowd. So is the "anti-man-made global warming crowd." The folks at NOAA are scientists, not politicians, and thus do not fall into either one of those areas.

It's like listening to someone talk about abortion. If their speech is about innocent babies being torn limb from limb by heartless doctors who don't care about human life, they're probably politicians or activists. If they talk about statistics relating preeclampsia to prophylactic pregnancy termination, or relative risk factors for carrying high risk pregnancies to term, then they're probably scientists or doctors.

Do you see a difference there?

>The only research scientists with any credibility on the side of man
>made global warming?

Nope. The only research scientists with any credibility are the ones who have studied the phenomena directly, rather than by reading articles from Newsmax (or CNN for that matter.)

>I'll take your 600 so called experts and counter then with Spencer anytime.

I know you will. As long as there is a single person who disagrees out there, you will use him to be able to say "I guess youre claim that there is consensis is a big lie!"

There are people who disagree with evolution, with general relativity, with Maxwell's equations - heck, there are people who don't believe the earth is a sphere. So you can always claim the "there's no consensus!" thing. Doesn't really matter any more. The planet will keep warming, and the deniers will be largely ignored since people tend to believe scientists (and the evidence of their own eyes) over politicians.

BTW Myron Ebell, one of the biggest deniers out there, just switched his position to a type III (i.e. he believes that we are causing warming, but believes it might be a good thing.) I expect more and more deniers to do this as time goes on and the climate keeps changing.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>You are saying only those who support man made climate change have
>data. Yet many posts here have taken the same data and disagreed with
>those conclusions.

Yes. Few people here are scientists, and the majority of people here post political opinions over data. (No surprise; that's why we created this forum, so politics had a place to go.)

>So, only the pro-man made global warming crowd has the smarts to
>interpet data?

Nope, you miss the point. The "pro-man-made global warming crowd" is a political crowd. So is the "anti-man-made global warming crowd." The folks at NOAA are scientists, not politicians, and thus do not fall into either one of those areas.

It's like listening to someone talk about abortion. If their speech is about innocent babies being torn limb from limb by heartless doctors who don't care about human life, they're probably politicians or activists. If they talk about statistics relating preeclampsia to prophylactic pregnancy termination, or relative risk factors for carrying high risk pregnancies to term, then they're probably scientists or doctors.

Do you see a difference there?

>The only research scientists with any credibility on the side of man
>made global warming?

Nope. The only research scientists with any credibility are the ones who have studied the phenomena directly, rather than by reading articles from Newsmax (or CNN for that matter.)

>I'll take your 600 so called experts and counter then with Spencer anytime.

I know you will. As long as there is a single person who disagrees out there, you will use him to be able to say "I guess youre claim that there is consensis is a big lie!"

There are people who disagree with evolution, with general relativity, with Maxwell's equations - heck, there are people who don't believe the earth is a sphere. So you can always claim the "there's no consensus!" thing. Doesn't really matter any more. The planet will keep warming, and the deniers will be largely ignored since people tend to believe scientists (and the evidence of their own eyes) over politicians.

BTW Myron Ebell, one of the biggest deniers out there, just switched his position to a type III (i.e. he believes that we are causing warming, but believes it might be a good thing.) I expect more and more deniers to do this as time goes on and the climate keeps changing.

Fact is? The climate will change

Fact not yet in? Man is or is not the cause.

no proff either way despite your alarmist retoric. That is a fact even you can not change

"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 3,116]

>Fact not yet in? Man is or is not the cause.

RushMC, Jul 2006: ". . . the hoax of 'man made' global warming."

RushMC, Jan 2007: " If man has any effect it is nearly un-measurable."

RushMC, Mar 2007: "No, I do not think or believe man is the cause."

I have to commend you for starting to change your position! I am glad you are no longer married to the idea that "it's all a hoax." Many other former deniers are doing the same as more and more data becomes available. I'm confident the more you look at the data out there the more you will understand what's going on.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Fact not yet in? Man is or is not the cause.

RushMC, Jul 2006: ". . . the hoax of 'man made' global warming."

RushMC, Jan 2007: " If man has any effect it is nearly un-measurable."

RushMC, Mar 2007: "No, I do not think or believe man is the cause."

I have to commend you for starting to change your position! I am glad you are no longer married to the idea that "it's all a hoax." Many other former deniers are doing the same as more and more data becomes available. I'm confident the more you look at the data out there the more you will understand what's going on.

At least one of us has an open mind

"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

>Fact not yet in? Man is or is not the cause.

RushMC, Jul 2006: ". . . the hoax of 'man made' global warming."

RushMC, Jan 2007: " If man has any effect it is nearly un-measurable."

RushMC, Mar 2007: "No, I do not think or believe man is the cause."

I have to commend you for starting to change your position! I am glad you are no longer married to the idea that "it's all a hoax." Many other former deniers are doing the same as more and more data becomes available. I'm confident the more you look at the data out there the more you will understand what's going on.

Oh, and I am still solidly in the Man is not the cause camp..Sorry to disapoint

"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 3,116]

>Oh, and I am still solidly in the Man is not the cause camp.

Ah. So when you said "Fact not yet in? Man is or is not the cause" you actually meant "Fact IN - Man is not the cause." OK then.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Oh, and I am still solidly in the Man is not the cause camp.

Ah. So when you said "Fact not yet in? Man is or is not the cause" you actually meant "Fact IN - Man is not the cause." OK then.

It is funny you know. I have the guts to admit the proof is not yet in. You don't

"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 3,116]

>I have the guts to admit the proof is not yet in. You don't

Yes, you're braver and smarter than me because you don't believe all those lying scientists. Have a good night!

[1969912 0]

No offense intended, but some of you guys sound a bit scary.

You've come up with labels for skeptics which are tasteless and an insult to Holocaust Survivors. There have been death threats against skeptics reported. At least one climate scientist has suggested the the AMS strip certification from skeptics. People are talking about Nuremberg style war crimes trials for skeptics, etc. It sounds like you guys are part of some creepy cult. IMHO that kind of behavior does nothing to help convince people that GW should be taken seriously, and most likely drives people away. When will a database be set up in order to keep track of skeptics? Next there will be calls to have skeptics tattooed.



-------------
The denial industry
Posted by David Roberts at 11:40 AM on 19 Sep 2006
Tools: print | email | + digg | + del.icio.us | + reddit | + stumbleupon

Check out this startling excerpt from George Monbiot's new book Heat.

It's about the climate-change "denial industry," which most of you are probably familiar with. What you may not know about is the peculiar role of the tobacco industry in the whole mess. I've read about this stuff for years and even I was surprised by some of the details.

When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards -- some sort of climate Nuremberg.

http://gristmill.grist.org/print/2006/9/19/11408/1106?show_comments=no
-------------

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[billvon 3,116]

>You've come up with labels for skeptics which are tasteless and an
>insult to Holocaust Survivors.

No insult intended, and the label (as I explained above) is not one I apply to people who question this or that. It's applied to people who do nothing more than deny; indeed, they base their arguments not on science but on denying other people's work. They are deniers, just as people who campaign are campaigners, and people who skydive are skydivers.

It's unfortunate that that word has gotten such a bad rap from other deniers. But what those two groups share is denial of a specific item; they don't have any other ideological basis. You can't really get all bent out of shape by use of a word in its original meaning. (Well, I guess you could, but you're going to be bent out of shape a lot. What if someone decides to buy a gas oven for their new house?)

>but some of you guys sound a bit scary.

Some of you guys sound a little scary too, with every reference to science referred to as alarmism!

>Next there will be calls to have skeptics tattooed.

It will be JUST LIKE HITLER! There, I said it.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>I have the guts to admit the proof is not yet in. You don't

Yes, you're braver and smarter than me because you don't believe all those lying scientists. Have a good night!

Hey Bill. I JUST BELIEVE SCIENTISTS THAT YOU DONT!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited to add: I sould have stated it this way. There are a group of scientists you believe in. There is another group of scientists I believe in. The difference. You call mine deniers sceptics and other names. I only say I disagree with the conclusions of your scientists and call those that perdict catostrophic dire consequenses " alarmists"

You call 'everyone' that does not agree deniers.


See a difference?

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