• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Huntsman on evolution, warming: 'Call me crazy'

ric27 said:
No, mi amigo...YOU are duped

If you look carefully at the cult that has sprung up around the theory that humans are responsible for the problem and need to take whatever immediate steps to they can to reduce their impact on the Earth's environment, you will find that most of the legitimate researchers disagree on quite a few of the subtleties around how we got to the current state and how we get out of it. They all tend to stand united because the hidden agenda here is that they want to change human society in such a way that it is, for lack of any better term, "more green", and they feel that goal is so important that any means are justified to attain it. Another problem arises when you start talking about the academic research grants and the intricate house of cards that business represents. When you combine those two factors you will find that the folks involved will quite readily design research and experimentation to favor whichever direction the political wind is blowing. Most of the academics will quite conveniently find evidence to support their socio-political beliefs, in this case that America and the SUV should be done away with. If someone with validating credentials speaks out against the popular theory about global warming they are attacked, reassigned, marginalized, their grant money dries up and after a while they end up losing their job.
Click to expand...

That is simply not true. There is vast agreement on the broad principles of AGW theory. This is all minutely documented in the multiple IPCC reports which represent the single largest organized review of scientific literature on any topic in the history of mankind.
 
Santorum expounds on the new GOP God over science preference:

"Speaking to a group of about 90 people at the Beacon Drive-In in Spartanburg, SC, a popular stop for presidential candidates, Santorum did not mention Gov. Huntsman by name but brought up his fellow candidate’s assertions, made on TV and via Twitter, that the Republican Party would have a “huge problem” if it became hostile to evolution and climate change.


“We are going through this debate right now by somebody who’s in the Republican field talking about people who believe in certain scientific theories, whether it’s global warming or evolution. And somehow or another if you believe that we are creatures of a loving God, that that is somehow anti-science,” Santorum said. “It’s not anti-science. It’s an affirmation of what we view in the world. Which is, we see God."

First Read - Santorum: GOP not 'anti-science'

So it is not that they are anti-science. They are only anti-science with science that conflict with their interpretation of the bible.
I'm glad he cleared that up! :sun
 
Boo Radley said:
Which is meaningless to the debate.
Click to expand...

No, Al Gore assigned himself as the chief spokesman for global warming, has made millions in speaking engagements describing the horrors awaiting us, won an Oscar with a movie he made (which now carries warning labels as to its veracity) and was the Democratic vice President of the USA, which means his Democratic followers are going too buy what he is selling, He knows that and profits mightily.
Didn't say it was determined by, but it does tell us what most the science says. There really are not as many questions as you seem to think there are. You simply choose to believe there are that many questions.
Click to expand...

The science is not yet there. Yu might be quite keen to believe Al Gore but the fact is that there has been a lot of money exchanging hands over the years to come up with predetermined results. At best you should be skeptical.
You might recall in reality it was only those who worked for the tobacco companies who said it was not deterimental to your health. Largely, the consensus said otherwise, that it was unhealthy for you. Tobacco companies successfully convinced the public there was a debate where there really wasn't one, just oil companies are doing now.
Click to expand...

No, there was every type of spokesperson shilling for cigarettes, including celebrities, just as there is now for Global Warming.
Click to expand...
 
AdamT said:
No one seriously claims that gravity doesn't exist, just as no one seriously claims that global warming doesn't exist. In both cases the inquiry surrounds the cause.
Click to expand...

We can discuss the causes of gravity bit I don''t see how this relates to global warming.
The causes of cancer are also theoretical. Should we not be spending tax dollars on cancer research?
Click to expand...

Cancer is real. It is not theoretical. We should invest in cancer research because we know cancer is real. We do not know that man made global warming is real. Try to stay on topic as your attempt at analogies don't make sense.

The bottom line is that you know very little about AGW but you have somehow managed to convince yourself that you know more about it than 97% of the people who have dedicated their lives to studying it.
Click to expand...

The bottom line is that "WE" know little of AGW. The jury is out, and in fact more and more people who have an interest in the subject are now walking away from it..
 
Grant said:
The science is not yet there.
Click to expand...

The science has been there on AGW since 2007. That is when the scientific debate ended. Since that time there has not been a single scientific organization of national or international standing that has held a dissenting view.
 
Catawba said:
The science has been there on AGW since 2007. That is when the scientific debate ended. Since that time there has not been a single scientific organization of national or international standing that has held a dissenting view.
Click to expand...

No, scientists are still working hard on the possible consequences of a planet out of control and the The Guardian, a left wing (natch!) British journal, sends out a timely reminder of just where we are headed if we don't follow the words Algore and give him our money so he can continue to spread the message.

Aliens may destroy humanity to protect other civilisations, say scientists | Science | The Guardian
 
hazlnut said:
Al Gore is not a scientist. He only presents facts and science...




Science is establish though consensus and peer-preview. We have four decades of data, peer-review, and consensus concluding that global warming is man made. Any who thinks otherwise is just believing lies spun by big Energy and big Coal.



The only thing that is unclear is why so many people can't see what's right in front of them...the rise in temps is causing a shift in climate. Spring and Fall are disappearing. We will be left with long and hard winters and summers.




You should really read up on this subject as your post reveals a profound ignorance on this issue.
Click to expand...
Hazlnut has established that volcanoes and natural occurences have no bearing on global warming, it is entirely man-made.
 
Last edited:
Grant said:
No, scientists are still working hard on the possible consequences of a planet out of control and the The Guardian, a left wing (natch!) British journal, sends out a timely reminder of just where we are headed if we don't follow the words Algore and give him our money so he can continue to spread the message.

Aliens may destroy humanity to protect other civilisations, say scientists | Science | The Guardian
Click to expand...

Scientists alway continue to work to challenge/reconfirm previous findings. It is why gravity is still called a theory. But show me the scientific organization of national or international standing that has held a dissenting view of AGW since 2007 to back up your claim that science isn't there on AGW?
 
American said:
Hazlnut has established that volcanoes and natural occurences have no bearing on global warming, it is entirely man-made.
Click to expand...

Through ice core analysis, scientists have compared the volcanic releases during previous warmings to this one and have determined they have not been the forcing in this warming. The scientific consensus is that most of the warming is attributable to man-made sources of CO2.
 
Catawba said:
Through ice core analysis, scientists have compared the volcanic releases during previous warmings to this one and have determined they have not been the forcing in this warming. The scientific consensus is that most of the warming is attributable to man-made sources of CO2.
Click to expand...

Correct. Too many think or is as either or and allow no possibility of both being a factor, but one contributing more htan the other. Most believe man has contributed to an increased warming to the natural cycle.
 
Grant said:
No, Al Gore assigned himself as the chief spokesman for global warming, has made millions in speaking engagements describing the horrors awaiting us, won an Oscar with a movie he made (which now carries warning labels as to its veracity) and was the Democratic vice President of the USA, which means his Democratic followers are going too buy what he is selling, He knows that and profits mightily.
Click to expand...

Meaningless. Absolutely meaningless. What matters is the actual science. Period.

The science is not yet there. Yu might be quite keen to believe Al Gore but the fact is that there has been a lot of money exchanging hands over the years to come up with predetermined results. At best you should be skeptical.
Click to expand...

Again, Gore has nothing to do with. And the science is fairly clear regardless of Gore. Bringing up Gore is a complete strawman. What is at issue is the scientific consensus and not Gore.

No, there was every type of spokesperson shilling for cigarettes, including celebrities, just as there is now for Global Warming.
Click to expand...

:lamo

GW isn't a product. Oil is. The shilling is so you can keep buying and burning oil and gas. You should review the history a little better. ;)
 
AdamT said:
That is simply not true. There is vast agreement on the broad principles of AGW theory. This is all minutely documented in the multiple IPCC reports which represent the single largest organized review of scientific literature on any topic in the history of mankind.
Click to expand...

For the sake of discussion, if everyone buys into the idea that humans are at fault here there are still two questions that need to be answered. And both of them have serious and potentially culture crushing political and economic implications. 1) What can be done about it and by whom? 2) Who is to administer the necessary changes?

How are you going to convince the peasants who are deforesting South America so they can build farms to feed themselves? How are you going to convince the leadership of China or India who don't care about anything other than gaining an economic upper hand over the west? How are you going to convince the countless tinpot banana republic dictators who shamelessly rape their countries natural resources with old school heavy industry?
 
ric27 said:
Really? Get ****ing real
Click to expand...

India and China urged to cut emissions | Environment | The Guardian
Poll: Developed and Emerging Nations Should Cut Emissions
‘US and China must reduce emissions 80 percent by 2020’ < STRONGOPINIONS.ORG
BBC News - Sarkozy backs calls to keep Kyoto
The Climate Post: While Congress Debates Climate Science, China and Europe Move Ahead | River Network
Shale gas, emission cuts urged - China.org.cn
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90778/90857/90860/6723794.html
U.S., China urged to curb carbon emissions - US news - Environment - Climate Change - msnbc.com

You've been lied to. The denialist crowd keeps pointing at China and says "SEE! SEE! NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT CHINA!" They think that if they tell you this often enough, you'll think it's true.

Here's a challenge: Find one person who has ever said the US should cut emissions but China doesn't have to. Specifically saying that China doesn't have to, because if I happen to mention the US should cut emissions that does not imply I think only the US should cut emissions.

Edit: One of those links was a sort of open letter to the presidents of both the US and China, here are the signatures:
Lester Brown, President, Earth Policy Institute
Rev. Sally G. Bingham, President, The Regeneration Project & Interfaith Power & Light
Brent Blackwelder, President Emeritus, Friends of the Earth
David Blittersdorf, President/CEO, AllEarth Renewables, Inc.
Jan Blittersdorf, President/CEO, NRG Systems, Inc.
Michael Brune, Executive Director, Sierra Club
Lisa Daniels, Executive Director, Windustry
Brock Evans, President, Endangered Species Coalition
Ross Gelbspan, Author
Paul Hawken, Author
Randy Hayes, Executive Director, Foundation Earth & Founder, Rainforest Action Network
Courtney Hight, Co-Director, Energy Action Coalition
Julia Butterfly Hill, Co-Founder, The Engage Network*
Chuck Kutscher, Former Chair, American Solar Energy Society & Principal Engineer, National Renewable Energy Laboratory*
Eric Lombardi, Executive Director, Eco-Cycle
Bill McKibben, Founder, 350.org
Erich Pica, President, Friends of the Earth
Phil Radford, Executive Director, Greenpeace
Kieran Suckling, Executive Director, Center for Biological Diversity
Rebecca Tarbotton, Executive Director, Rainforest Action Network
Mike Tidwell, Director, Chesapeake Climate Action Network
James A. Walker, Former President, American Wind Energy Association
Tom Weis, President, Climate Crisis Solutions
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
ric27 said:
For the sake of discussion, if everyone buys into the idea that humans are at fault here there are still two questions that need to be answered. And both of them have serious and potentially culture crushing political and economic implications. 1) What can be done about it and by whom? 2) Who is to administer the necessary changes?

How are you going to convince the peasants who are deforesting South America so they can build farms to feed themselves? How are you going to convince the leadership of China or India who don't care about anything other than gaining an economic upper hand over the west? How are you going to convince the countless tinpot banana republic dictators who shamelessly rape their countries natural resources with old school heavy industry?
Click to expand...

No. 1 is very simple: reduce CO2 emissions, and as many people as possible. No. 2 isn't particularly difficult either. It doesn't really matter who administers it, so long as the biggest emitter get their own houses in order. Ideally there would be a binding international treaty, but that's not likely to happen.

The biggest emitters by far are China, the U.S., and the EU, accounting for 55% of global emissions. That's where we need to start. China has a legitimate argument that they should not be held to the same standards as the U.S. and the EU, since we are responsible for the vast majority of man-made CO2 to date.

What is certain not to work is everyone standing in a circle saying, "you go first", "no, you go first", "no, you go first." We will never have standing to lead on this issue if we continue to do nothing.
 
Grant said:
The Gorists are forced to misrepresent and lie in attempts to try and make their case, just as you did here.
Click to expand...

Gorists!

OMG, now that's a new one.

So, now, every scientific organization in the world, is made up of "Gorists".

Sound pretty gory to me.
 
Grant said:
No, scientists are still working hard on the possible consequences of a planet out of control and the The Guardian, a left wing (natch!) British journal, sends out a timely reminder of just where we are headed if we don't follow the words Algore and give him our money so he can continue to spread the message.

Aliens may destroy humanity to protect other civilisations, say scientists | Science | The Guardian
Click to expand...

There is a thread about that story here. Fox News went so far as to call them "NASA" scientists. What they are is a bunch of grad students engaging in some interesting but quite meaningless wild speculation.

Not scientists.

Perhaps they are gory Gorists. I'm not sure.
 
Everyone in academia knows that you cant get any grant money by proving your colleagues wrong. ; ) LOL

It's not like they compete against each other and score point by pointing out the flaws in each other's research.

Oh, wait...
 
The solution is to fund energy research as a top priority. Whether one believes in AGW or not, oil is finite, and affordable oil will be gone faster than we would like. It falls on us to develop the technology that will replace oil. The alternative is to pretend oil won't run out and then get caught up in a global war for the remaining reserves.
 
This was pretty funny:

"In a recent interview with the Fox Business Network, Bill Nye (yes, the Science Guy) explained to host Charles Payne that Al Gore's recent comments on the need for climate change discourse may not be far off point, especially when one considers the science behind it all.

The clip, available on Media Matters, aired just after Hurricane Irene had passed the East Coast of the U.S. It is from a segment of the show "Freedom Watch," discussing a link between climate change and extreme weather.

At the beginning of the clip, Payne mentions a Newsweek article from May that suggests extreme weather is the “new normal” because of climate change.

When asked if Irene was “proof of global warming,” Nye patiently explained that it is likely “evidence” for or “a result of” global warming. He added that the climate modeling needed to actually determine this will take at least several months, but he seemed confident of what the results would be.

Payne also asked Nye if there was any science behind the post-Katrina prediction that extreme weather would only increase in the coming years. Nye replied, “Well there's a lot more science behind it than saying it's not.” He suggested that the six years since Hurricane Katrina is a relatively short period of time to see a definite trend emerge.

Jeff Masters, a meteorologist with Weather Underground told HuffPost's Lynne Peeples in a previous interview, "Sea levels around New York have gone up 13 inches over last hundred years ... the five foot wall protecting Manhattan is one foot less able to keep water out than it was a century ago. This is going to be a kind of wake-up call for New York City: It's the first time they're going to have to evacuate from Zone A, and it's not going to be the last."

After showing a clip of Al Gore's recent comments about confronting climate deniers, Payne asked Nye whether it helped climate change believers “to always bring in things like racism” or if it “denigrate anyone who might just have an inkling that maybe this stuff doesn't exist.”

Nye responded that after measuring temperatures worldwide, “you can't disagree” with the fact that the world is getting warmer. He also argued that, “when you learn the science of climate change, in my opinion, you will find it quite compelling. And you will want to do something about it, rather than pretend it doesn't happen.”

Payne thanked Nye, but said he was “confusing some of the viewers.”

Damnit! Stop confusing Fox viewers with facts and science!! :lol:

Bill Nye Discusses Climate Change With Fox Business Network's Charles Payne (VIDEO)
 
Last edited:
Helix said:
The solution is to fund energy research as a top priority. Whether one believes in AGW or not, oil is finite, and affordable oil will be gone faster than we would like. It falls on us to develop the technology that will replace oil. The alternative is to pretend oil won't run out and then get caught up in a global war for the remaining reserves.
Click to expand...

Addendum :


Novel alloy could produce hydrogen fuel from sunlight
 
Helix said:
The solution is to fund energy research as a top priority. Whether one believes in AGW or not, oil is finite, and affordable oil will be gone faster than we would like. It falls on us to develop the technology that will replace oil. The alternative is to pretend oil won't run out and then get caught up in a global war for the remaining reserves.
Click to expand...

Do you mean before we get caught up in another war for the remaining reserves?
 
AdamT said:
This was pretty funny:

"In a recent interview with the Fox Business Network, Bill Nye (yes, the Science Guy) explained to host Charles Payne that Al Gore's recent comments on the need for climate change discourse may not be far off point, especially when one considers the science behind it all.

The clip, available on Media Matters, aired just after Hurricane Irene had passed the East Coast of the U.S. It is from a segment of the show "Freedom Watch," discussing a link between climate change and extreme weather.

At the beginning of the clip, Payne mentions a Newsweek article from May that suggests extreme weather is the “new normal” because of climate change.

When asked if Irene was “proof of global warming,” Nye patiently explained that it is likely “evidence” for or “a result of” global warming. He added that the climate modeling needed to actually determine this will take at least several months, but he seemed confident of what the results would be.

Payne also asked Nye if there was any science behind the post-Katrina prediction that extreme weather would only increase in the coming years. Nye replied, “Well there's a lot more science behind it than saying it's not.” He suggested that the six years since Hurricane Katrina is a relatively short period of time to see a definite trend emerge.

Jeff Masters, a meteorologist with Weather Underground told HuffPost's Lynne Peeples in a previous interview, "Sea levels around New York have gone up 13 inches over last hundred years ... the five foot wall protecting Manhattan is one foot less able to keep water out than it was a century ago. This is going to be a kind of wake-up call for New York City: It's the first time they're going to have to evacuate from Zone A, and it's not going to be the last."

After showing a clip of Al Gore's recent comments about confronting climate deniers, Payne asked Nye whether it helped climate change believers “to always bring in things like racism” or if it “denigrate anyone who might just have an inkling that maybe this stuff doesn't exist.”

Nye responded that after measuring temperatures worldwide, “you can't disagree” with the fact that the world is getting warmer. He also argued that, “when you learn the science of climate change, in my opinion, you will find it quite compelling. And you will want to do something about it, rather than pretend it doesn't happen.”

Payne thanked Nye, but said he was “confusing some of the viewers.”

Damnit! Stop confusing Fox viewers with facts and science!! :lol:

Bill Nye Discusses Climate Change With Fox Business Network's Charles Payne (VIDEO)
Click to expand...


Bill Nye may be a science guy but he is not a climatologist guy.

The last paragraph suggests that people are not becoming afraid of everything, and why industry is moving away from the States.

Many other Americans seem to agree with Bill Nye and have decided not to pretend it doesn't happen. Actress Daryl Hannah is now among nearly 600 people, including environmentalists, religious leaders and ordinary Americans, who have been arrested in front of the White House since August 20 for protesting the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. Tar Sands Action leader Bill McKibben said it may be "the largest collective act of civil disobedience in the history of the climate movement."
Click to expand...
 
Grant said:
Bill Nye may be a science guy but he is not a climatologist guy.

The last paragraph suggests that people are not becoming afraid of everything, and why industry is moving away from the States.
Click to expand...

They're going to move the pipeline out of the U.S.? They better have a lot of pipe!
 
Grant said:
Bill Nye may be a science guy but he is not a climatologist guy.
Click to expand...

And his opinion is the same as the 97% consensus of Climate scientists ~

"A group of 3,146 earth scientists surveyed around the world overwhelmingly agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising, and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures."

"Two questions were key: have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

In analyzing responses by sub-groups, Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 and 64 percent respectively believing in human involvement. Doran compared their responses to a recent poll showing only 58 percent of the public thinks human activity contributes to global warming."
Scientists Agree Human-induced Global Warming Is Real, Survey Says
 
Dittohead not! said:
There is a thread about that story here. Fox News went so far as to call them "NASA" scientists. What they are is a bunch of grad students engaging in some interesting but quite meaningless wild speculation.

Not scientists.

Perhaps they are gory Gorists. I'm not sure.
Click to expand...

Didn't see the Fox story but the Guardian, which caters to leftists, ran it as a science feature.

The Left, being gullible as they are, will swallow that stuff whole.

Who exposed them as "grad students" and where are they located?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom