# Another Global Warming claim Down the Drain



## Big Don (Mar 25, 2008)

NY Times story
Add this to last weeks story about how global warming hasn't happened in a decade and you get a bad week for environmental fear mongers


----------



## tellner (Mar 25, 2008)

Don, if you're out of work later this Spring come on up to Washington. They don't have enough migrant workers to harvest the orchards could use an expert cherry picker.

If you actually bothered to read the article, much less look at the abstract of the article it discusses you would have been embarrassed to post this. The fungus responsible for the disappearance of the harlequin frog thrives in certain climatic conditions. With increasing global temperature those conditions apply over more of the frogs' range. 

Nobody is disputing that.

This original researchers think there is a permanent reservoir of the fungus where there wasn't one before. The second group believes that there may have been several infections. Both of them agree on the cause of the population crash. Both agree that higher temperatures encourage the growth of the fungus. Both agree that there are higher temperatures in the frogs' range than in years past.

They part ways on the source of the fungus and agree that they don't know enough to make a final conclusion. As always, more research needs to be done.

But you have somehow passed that through some sort of paranoid filter and concluded that the original research was a hoax and that things aren't getting warmer worldwide or if they are it's not a problem.

You've been beaten bloody up one side and down the other every time you've repeated the Republican Talking Points on this. Give it up. You're not fooling anyone including yourself.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 25, 2008)

So the melting permafrost in Alaska and Siberia ... that's all ... what, group hallucination?  

Oh good. I feel so much better now ....


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 25, 2008)

Keep it up Big Don, you've almost won!


----------



## mrhnau (Mar 25, 2008)

I think the issue here (in general, not this paper) is not global climate change. We don't live in a closed system. The climate constantly changes. I think the sticking point is that is it man caused rather than natural factors, such as long term solar cycles or global incidents such as volcanic activity.

Is the climate changing? Sure, it always has. There were ice ages and warmer ages in our planets history. Is it our fault? Thats harder to convince people of. Should we be better stewards of our planet? I don't think thats difficult to argue, but I think we need to be smart about how we do so. Try to inspire and uplift rather than pulling down, insulting and inspiring fear. Instead of raising taxes to pay for environmental improvements lower taxes or give tax breaks for companies or individuals doing positive things for the environment. Help developing nations acquire "green" technologies so they don't make the same boo-boo's we did.


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 25, 2008)

mrhnau said:


> Instead of raising taxes to pay for environmental improvements lower taxes or give tax breaks for companies or individuals doing positive things for the environment.



That's pretty much the exact same thing.  Money given to these companies will have to be made up somehow, and once our creditors stop letting us borrow without limit, that means raising taxes.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 25, 2008)

Oh man not again.

OK there is no global warming Ice caps are not melting, weather is not changing and all is pretty all is good and everything works just like it should... on a global scale

There Don you are right all is right with the world and when the people of Florida find their homes are under water just look North and say everything is just fine

When and if things occur like they did during the Younger Dryas and things get REAL cold REAL fast due to all the excess fresh water in the Ocean form the ice that is not melting causes the conveyor belt system to shut down just close your eyes and click you heals together 3 times and repeat there is no place like home... there is no place like home.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 25, 2008)

Now, now ladies and gents :lol:.  

I concur with your exasperation and I know we've repeatedly tried every gentler method to try and shine a light into a dark corner but people are entitled to their opinions (within certain boundaries of decency).  I know how I would react if the roles were reversed.

I have to blushing confess that I have, in the past, more or less outright posted that Don was being wilfully blind but I was wrong to do so - that was just my own personality trait coming through wherein a reflexive gainsaying of reason and evidence wafts my incredulity factor through the roof .

He's never going to agree until the ocean laps over his feet, so it's futile to argue.  All we can do is point out when statements are made that do not compute with programmed facts, as the Nutrimatic Drinks Machine once so famously said.  That way those that are genuinely uniformed are not mislead and we don't skirt the borders of the Terms & Conditions.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Mar 25, 2008)

Xue Sheng said:


> There Don you are right all is right with the world and when the people of Florida find their homes are under water just look North and say everything is just fine


 
Hey, I live in Florida. :uhoh: Oh well, guess I better get crackin' on that houseboat.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 25, 2008)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> Hey, I live in Florida. :uhoh: Oh well, guess I better get crackin' on that houseboat.


 
Nah, you got time... at least a week and a half 

Actually at this rate baring any possible cooling effect that could happen form to much fresh water being introduced into the system I think the figure was about 100 years or so.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 26, 2008)

Xue Sheng said:


> Actually at this rate baring any possible cooling effect that could happen form to much fresh water being introduced into the system I think the figure was about 100 years or so.


 
The problem is, they really don't know.  They make predictions, and then things start to happen a lot faster than they thought possible and they have to revise their predictions.  I've heard some predictions, based on observed and measured events, that suggest we will see some real effects within our lifetimes.  I wouldn't be surprised if that gets shortened down to a decade or two...


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 26, 2008)

http://media.www.kstatecollegian.co...Not.Prove.Global.Warming.Claims-2941785.shtml



> ...One problem with the latter argument is global warming actually is not global at all. According to a study by Lubos Motl, a Harvard physicist, global warming is not affecting the whole world.
> 
> The study showed the southern hemisphere has been warming 0.05 degrees Celsius a decade since 1970. The physicist has stated the measuring station at the South Pole actually has shown a distinctive cooling trend in temperatures.
> 
> ...





> ...Here's a question: what happens when you leave an ice cube out on your counter? It melts. Ice tends to melt when it is in an environment above freezing. To say an ice glacier is melting is not an eye opening, jaw-dropping discovery. Rather, it is merely a guess.
> 
> It is not a good guess, either. While some glaciers have been melting, scientists have proven other glaciers are growing (a process known as calving), Horner said.
> 
> So if the melting of a glacier is proof of global warming, then the calving of another must be proof of a global cooling...


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 26, 2008)

http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_3899807



> Pielke contends there isn't enough intellectual diversity in the debate. He claims a few vocal individuals are quoted "over and over" again, when in fact there are a variety of opinions.
> 
> I ask him: How do we fix the public perception that the debate is over?
> 
> ...


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 26, 2008)

Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus
Richard S. Lindzen

Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 26, 2008)

I still think an ice age is coming so where does that leave me :lol:?


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 26, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> I still think an ice age is coming so where does that leave me :lol:?


 
Oh, I'm sure you are correct, actually.  But don't look for it for another 50,000 - 200,000 years or so...


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 26, 2008)

I was half expecting some smart Alec comments like "Out in the cold" or "Stuck in the '70's".


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 26, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> I was half expecting some smart Alec comments like "Out in the cold" or "Stuck in the '70's".


 
how about: isn't it past your bedtime yet?

:rofl:


----------



## ChadWarner (Mar 26, 2008)

shesulsa said:


> So the melting permafrost in Alaska and Siberia ... that's all ... what, group hallucination?
> 
> Oh good. I feel so much better now ....


 
The ice is increasing in the antarctic.  The changes in the weather have a lot more to do with the solar system and gravitational pull accentuating the tides by the sun and the moon prolly much more than anything else and precession of the earth itself. These things are natural phenomena and there is nothing humans can do to change it at this point in time.  

There are too many variables to think something so insignificant as man could really change the solar system and thus begin to affect the climate on earth in less the 100 years.   

Just the study of plate tectonics should tell you the currents will change and weather and temperature will be greatly effected on earth.  This will happen and is happening now inch by inch.  

What you should be concerned with is multi national death corporations importing lead based paint and such into America.  This will kill much sooner then global anything except war.


----------



## RED (Apr 2, 2008)

The argument of the centutry can now come to an end.

I'm going to buy some rubbers...shoe covers...just in case Ohio gets flooded.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 2, 2008)

All of this can be found  here:



> In the May 27, 1950 issue of JAMA, Morton Levin publishes first major study definitively linking smoking to lung cancer. In the same issue, "Tobacco Smoking as a Possible Etiologic Factor in Bronchiogenic Carcinoma: A Study of 684 Proved Cases," by Ernst L. Wynder and Evarts A. Graham of the United States, found that 96.5% of lung cancer patients interviewed were moderate heavy-to-chain-smokers. In the Sept. 30, 1950 British Medical Journal, a study by Richard Doll and Bradford Hill found that heavy smokers were fifty times as likely as nonsmokers to contract lung cancer.
> 
> 1953: Dr. Ernst L. Wynder's landmark report finds that painting cigarette tar on the backs of mice creates tumors--the first definitive biological link between smoking and cancer.
> 
> ...




...


----------



## tellner (Apr 2, 2008)

Absolutely beautiful example, Elder.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Apr 4, 2008)

That's all well and good, but let's look at the AMA's current policy on tobacco labeling:

http://www.ama-assn.org/apps/pf_new/pf_online?f_n=browse&doc=policyfiles/HnE/H-495.989.HTM



> [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif](1) supports working toward more explicit and effective health warnings regarding the use of tobacco (and alcohol) products, including the extension of labeling requirements of ingredients to tobacco products sold in the United States; [/FONT]
> 
> [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif](2) supports legislation or regulations that require (a) tobacco companies to accurately label their products indicating nicotine content in easily understandable and meaningful terms that have plausible biological significance; (b) picture-based warning labels on tobacco products produced in, sold in, or exported from the United States; (c) an increase in the size of warning labels to include the statement that smoking is ADDICTIVE and may result in DEATH; and (d) all advertisements for cigarettes and each pack of cigarettes to carry a legible, boxed warning such as: "Warning: Cigarette Smoking causes CANCER OF THE MOUTH, LARYNX, AND LUNG, is a major cause of HEART DISEASE AND EMPHYSEMA, is ADDICTIVE, and may result in DEATH. Infants and children living with smokers have an increased risk of respiratory infections and cancer;" and (3) urges the Congress to require that: (a) warning labels on cigarette packs should appear on the front and the back and occupy twenty-five percent of the total surface area on each side and be set out in black-and-white block; (b) in the case of cigarette advertisements, warning labels of cigarette packs should be moved to the top of the ad and should be enlarged to twenty-five percent of total ad space; and (c) warning labels following these specifications should be included on cigarette packs of U.S. companies being distributed for sale in foreign markets. (CSA Rep. 3, A-04) [/FONT]


 
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]So where does that place your theory now, I wonder.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]If you want to make the claim that all sides of an argument can be bought, I'm down with that. But that includes those on the man-made global warming side of the issue.[/FONT]


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 4, 2008)

WOW I forgot about this post



Flying Crane said:


> The problem is, they really don't know. They make predictions, and then things start to happen a lot faster than they thought possible and they have to revise their predictions. I've heard some predictions, based on observed and measured events, that suggest we will see some real effects within our lifetimes. I wouldn't be surprised if that gets shortened down to a decade or two...


 
True. As I have used as an example before "the Younger Dryas". Things happened scary fast and possibly decimated human populations in areas like the East Coast of North America. And this was likely due to a rather LARGE influx of fresh water into the Atlantic




Sukerkin said:


> I still think an ice age is coming so where does that leave me :lol:?


 
There has ALWAY got to be at least ONE realist to mess up the chaos.. doen't there


----------



## newGuy12 (Apr 4, 2008)

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/china_celebrates_its_status_as


----------



## elder999 (Apr 6, 2008)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]So where does that place your theory now, I wonder.[/FONT]
> 
> [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]If you want to make the claim that all sides of an argument can be bought, I'm down with that. But that includes those on the man-made global warming side of the issue.[/FONT]


 

Well, it makes my point, doesn't it? I mean, it is't about buying sides, it's about belief in what's evident. All the mounting evidence betwen the  Depression and 1960 said that smoking cigarettes caused cancer. In spite of this, it was fought-until the evidence was insurmountable. Of course, in the case of global warming, the evidence will also prove to be insurmountable-when it's far too late to do anything about it, if it isn't already.

And yeah, a look at the papers and memos of the tobacco industry demonstrate pretty conclusively that they knew they were fighting the truth for more than twenty years, and bought off everyone they could....


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Apr 6, 2008)

elder999 said:


> Well, it makes my point, doesn't it? I mean, it is't about buying sides, it's about belief in what's evident. All the mounting evidence betwen the Depression and 1960 said that smoking cigarettes caused cancer. In spite of this, it was fought-until the evidence was insurmountable. Of course, in the case of global warming, the evidence will also prove to be insurmountable-when it's far too late to do anything about it, if it isn't already.
> 
> And yeah, a look at the papers and memos of the tobacco industry demonstrate pretty conclusively that they knew they were fighting the truth for more than twenty years, and bought off everyone they could....


 

It absolutely does.  Then the question becomes, since there are those that believe that the anti- man-made global warming crowd is apparently biased by money, why don't we find out who pays the man-made global warming crowd.

Unfortunately, I think that it will be difficult to show.  All on that side probably do have a "good moral agenda".  They probably really believe what they say, especially in academia.  But even professors have been shown to be biased, at least politically.  Also, those in academia who fight the man-made issue don't get funded.  So there is an economic bias to it on their side.

I guess we will have to wait till the evidence is "insurmountable."  However, I still see it as inherantly difficult to prove such a thing in a large open system as the environment.


----------



## tellner (May 30, 2008)

Bumping.

The White House finally released its global warming report. It was four years late, and the only reason it ever saw the light of day was a Court order. The Administration fought like hell to keep its own conclusions away from the public.

I'm not surprised. The paper reluctantly admits that it's real, it's growing (at least 4-7 degrees this century, which is on the fast side), it's having significant bad effects right now, and it's probably human caused.

In other words, the scientists were right. The right wing lie machine was wrong. And the Administration knew it and did everything it could to make sure we didn't know the truth.

Choke on it, True Believers.


----------



## Empty Hands (May 30, 2008)

tellner said:


> The paper reluctantly admits that it's real, it's growing (at least 4-7 degrees this century, which is on the fast side), it's having significant bad effects right now, and it's probably human caused.



What else do you expect from a bunch of LIEbruls?


----------

