• 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!

Top Climate Skeptic Reverses Course, Now Urges Bold Action

If you read closely, it doesn't appear that he's changing his mind about climate science so much as he is changing his mind about the feasibility of a move toward cleaner energy that wouldn't have overwhelming negative economic implications.
 
Your 100% Correct
 
RightinNYC said:
If you read closely, it doesn't appear that he's changing his mind about climate science so much as he is changing his mind about the feasibility of a move toward cleaner energy that wouldn't have overwhelming negative economic implications.
Click to expand...

So we're all supposed to stand up and pay attention because someone sort of changed their view on GW? Whoa. Shocker.



Thanks for the clarification NYC. After reading the article, I didn't quite agree with the OP and then read your post. You said it better than I could have.
 
Last edited:
j-mac said:
BOWERBIRD!!!!!! How ya doin'

Fact is there bird, we have posted many things that are dismissed by the faithful believers in consensus brainwashing that is GW. So to continue to post it is fruitless. Look, when you get China to stop producing their 2 coal fired electric plants a week, then let me know.

j-mac
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/11/world/asia/11coal.html

China says moving to enforce greenhouse gas goals | Reuters

CDM answer to greenhouse gas emissions, expert says

At least China is doing something. But I have always found this argument curious because on the one hand you are virtually acknowledging there IS a problem - because if there is not why complain about China? On the other hand it smacks of "But Billy doesn't have to clean HIS bedrooms so why should I clean mine?"

Whatever China is or is not doing is immaterial to the facts

A) CO2 levels are rising in the atmosphere (can you dispute that?)
b) we know man has a significant role in the rate of rise (please try and dispute that)
Carbon_Cycle.gif

c) That Co2 is a greenhouse gas (ague that and you are into basic physics)
d) that there is definitive measurement that the long wave radiation patterns emitted from Earth have changed - especially over the last 40 years

Want me to go on?

BTW J been doing well - been on a different bigger board and learning lots and lots more about climate change;)
 
Last edited:
Cyborg said:
Aren't you confusing the list of Voters that Acorn signed up which had the Football Team Line up. The Flier was neither deceptive nor nebulous. It contained many pages of Climate data. With respect to the signers; go to the website and it breaks the signers down into their respective disciplines. It also list their qualifications and degrees. Also included is the UN resolution and the 600 signers whose commentary was NOT allowed. There are also hundreds of Climatologists. You can't count the PHD's unless you want to spend considerable time.
This statement is the usual Statist blurt - Make a sweeping generalization that has no relevancy and every body is supposed to run and hide because the Wizard has spoken.
Why should I care what a guy with a bachelor's in mettalurgy thinks about global warming, and since when does a bachelor's degree get you the title "scientist" anyway?
Click to expand...

I don't know anything about any "ACORN" list (Which appears to be a North American phenomena) but it purely cannot be any more fraudulent than the "Oregon Petition" which so many keep waving as "proof" that "there is no consensus"

Me personally? I go with the 37 National academies of science that have issued statements supporting climate change, the 187 governments that have signed Kyoto, and the multiple independent reviews of the overall body of scientific knowledge

Considering the known and extended falsification of data exposed in the E-mails it seems realistic to go back and thoroughly examine the data and have an open dialog. That hasn't happened. It's all behind closed doors. To rely on certain involved scientists is delusional, under the circumstances.
Click to expand...

Oh! You mean the "Wished for falsification that never materialised into anything?
Scientists - including - NASA are dependent on massive Government funding. The more important the work the greater the financial reward. Conversely Scientists that work in University environments can kiss their careers goodbye if or when they challenge the "favored" hypothesis. Their research funding rapidly dries up or disappears.
Click to expand...

Errr No, that is not how all scientists operate - many are in tenured positions that are there regardless of stance on global warming. Also we are talking about tens of thousands of scientists world wide. Do you think EVERY university in EVERY country across the world has the same internal politics? (mutters to self - when will Americans learn to think outside of America?) And PLEASE PLEASE tell me how this purported choking of funds would spill over into disciplines like geology or industrial chemists or any of the allied disciplines upon whose research the whole body of science is also dependent?

A good example of that was the publicized debate on Embryonic Stem Cell Research and Federal Funding.
There have been no discoveries made using embryonic research. Universities were in a tizzy in wanting Federal Funding. Why? They get million of "Free" taxpayer money to virtually use almost any way they want. They can buy more equipment, build another lab all of which increases their stature in attracting top researchers who also get "Liberal" grants of taxpayer money.
ANOTHER LITTLE KNOW BENEFIT OF FEDERAL FUNDING ARE THE --- PATENTS --- UNIVERSITIES OBTAIN. They get Millions and Millions of dollars in Royalties from those Patents. Just one Patent yielded over $300 million dollars in royalties for one University.

If there had been a likely or visible speck of gain through embryonic research - Investors would have been all over it. No Investors
By contrast there have been thousands of small and large advances in Placenta stem cells and now the discovery to turn normal cells into stem cells.

Meanwhile, polls of actual climatologists show that 95% support the concensus on global warming.
TV Advertisement polls were done with a book in which the person had to write down the TV programs they watched. Then there was a move to go electronic, with a box on the TV that electronically tracked everything. Result was a truer factual replication of actual viewing and the discovery - they switched off the ads. Advertisers no longer pay outrageous sumes for TV advertising. ( TV revenues plummeted as viewers deserted TV in large numbers in favor of the Internet. Gone was the vapor of consistent TV watching certain programs.
TV programs liver and die by ratings.
In my opinion until the World Wide Financial Platinum Mine seen by Greedy Investors in making Trillions of dollars off of Global Warming I want 100% proof which is not the case. Right now there is too much to be gained financially by too many if Global Warming stops the world from turning - which it will in a way.

I reject totally your trite wave of your Wizard wand and Statist aura of self assumed superiority.
My opinion. All Polls can be skewed, most are skewed and there is usually something to be gained from the results of the Poll.
I don't believe hardly any Polls unless I can see the questions, the circumstances, and the connections the poll takers have with the existing hypothesis and who was polled and who wasn't polled.

How Superior you think you are. That is the Problem with Liberals. Everybody else is stupid, ignorant and worthless. They are the lordly Intelligentsia and dismiss everyone else as inferior and incompetent. Do you obsess in front of the mirror?
Personally I often think Liberals are afflicted with Statist Megacephalic Cerebral Necrosis.
Nobody claimed that mankind is the only possible cause of temperature changes, so pointing out that melting on Mars couldn't be our fault is just stupid diversions so typical of your kind.
Click to expand...

And now we come down to the real underlying reason for rejection of the science p it is more about rejection of the perceived "intellectualism" and "superiority"
 
Ockham said:
So we're all supposed to stand up and pay attention because someone sort of changed their view on GW? Whoa. Shocker.



Thanks for the clarification NYC. After reading the article, I didn't quite agree with the OP and then read your post. You said it better than I could have.
Click to expand...

Likewise every time someone has changed sides from supporting to denying. Personally I have seen the SAME name branded about as a "supporter who became a denier" about 60 times - each one claiming it was "yet another scientist leaving the flock" - but it was always the same person they were talking about
 
Hatuey said:
Top Climate Skeptic Reverses Course, Now Urges Bold Action | Triple Pundit: People, Planet, Profit



I can already see the replies to this:

- He's part of the hoax
- He's a convert to the 'religion' of global warming
- He's getting paid to switch sides

... We'll have to see how the story develops.
Click to expand...

Bjorn Lomborg was never really a "climate skeptic" as it's commonly defined. He's always believed in global warming; he just thought that there were better, more effective uses for the amount of money that it would cost to prevent global warming...like fighting HIV and malaria, or providing clean water. And for what it's worth, I agree with his original position.

I'm not opposed to more research into geoengineering techniques or government subsides for alternative energy (in fact, I think that solar energy will eventually free us from an oil-based economy around 2025ish)...but I am opposed to heavy-handed approaches like cap-and-trade. If we're going to do something heavy-handed, let's just stick with a simple gas tax, or else not do it at all.
 
Blah blah blah statist, conspiracy, funding. Skeptics will use anything and everything to confuse the issue... except actual science. It's a position that leans almost entirely on ad hominem or outright lies. Appealing to the lowest common denominator isn't going to win a scientific argument. Sorry, you might call it arrogant, but the guy who has been researching climate for a decade has a more important opinion on climate than a metallurgist or journalist.

I mean, you wouldn't take your car to be repaired by personal trainer or skydive instructor, would you? Why would you listen to people who aren't scientists and don't work in any climate-related field?

97% of active climatologists agree that human activity is causing global warming : Deltoid

97% of active climatologists support the theory. Saying there's some disagreement is fine, just don't try to inflate your numbers with freaking undergrads.
 
The Title to this article is FALSE. If you read their own PDF article only 5% of the scientists were climatologists. The others were in other fields. The article Proves "Nothing"

>>>>>> 97% of active climatologists agree that human activity is causing global warming : Deltoid <<<<<<<<

Many of those Scientists were being asked for their opinion. There is nothing to indicate that any of them had reviewed the Data for Scientific analysis, methodology or other. Nothing is indicated what "all" of them did as far as research. If you add up those that might be related - you come up to about 40%. 40% of 3,146 = a little over 1,200 Scientists.

10,257 Scientists were asked to participate. Only 3,146 responded to the survey. The Petition you dissed has almost ten times as many Scientists who agree otherwise.
Your blowing Smoke!
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
 
Cyborg said:
The Title to this article is FALSE. If you read their own PDF article only 5% of the scientists were climatologists. The others were in other fields. The article Proves "Nothing"

>>>>>> 97% of active climatologists agree that human activity is causing global warming : Deltoid <<<<<<<<

Many of those Scientists were being asked for their opinion. There is nothing to indicate that any of them had reviewed the Data for Scientific analysis, methodology or other. Nothing is indicated what "all" of them did as far as research. If you add up those that might be related - you come up to about 40%. 40% of 3,146 = a little over 1,200 Scientists.

10,257 Scientists were asked to participate. Only 3,146 responded to the survey. The Petition you dissed has almost ten times as many Scientists who agree otherwise.
Your blowing Smoke!
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
Click to expand...

What, and that "31000 scientist" petition had some selective criteria?

Again, why should i care what 3000 electrical engineers think?
 
Last edited:
Nine-banded_Armadillo.jpg


I don’t know much about scientific proof of global warming but in addition to hundreds of square miles of ice falling into the ocean and these little critters, which I see as far north as Nebraska now….to me it looks pretty suspicious. Whether it’s man-made???:confused: Who knows but something happening.
 
Last edited:
donc said:
Nine-banded_Armadillo.jpg


I don’t know much about scientific proof of global warming but in addition to hundreds of square miles of ice falling into the ocean and these little critters, which I see as far north as Nebraska now….to me it looks pretty suspicious. Whether it’s man-made???:confused: Who knows but something happening.
Click to expand...

Well, that's fairly anecdotal but it does lead to the point that nature itself does show thousands of signs of a warming planet. There's a subset of the skeptic crowd who thinks the earth isn't actually getting warmer. I guess the birds and plants are in on the conspiracy, then. Anyone who thinks the earth is the same temperature as it was 100 years ago is just plain ignorant. Thinking it's "natural" is one thing, but thinking it isn't happening is beyond crazy.
 
Deuce said:
Well, that's fairly anecdotal but it does lead to the point that nature itself does show thousands of signs of a warming planet. There's a subset of the skeptic crowd who thinks the earth isn't actually getting warmer. I guess the birds and plants are in on the conspiracy, then. Anyone who thinks the earth is the same temperature as it was 100 years ago is just plain ignorant. Thinking it's "natural" is one thing, but thinking it isn't happening is beyond crazy.
Click to expand...

I’m not here to argue whether its man made or not, as I haven’t made up my mind on that… .yet. The ones that don’t think that we have global warming must surely by the same ones that think the earth is flat.
 
donc said:
I’m not here to argue whether its man made or not, as I haven’t made up my mind on that… .yet. The ones that don’t think that we have global warming must surely by the same ones that think the earth is flat.
Click to expand...

Or, maybe it isn't as simple as "all for" or "all against," and there are many "middle grounds"? :roll
 
Travelsonic said:
Or, maybe it isn't as simple as "all for" or "all against," and there are many "middle grounds"? :roll
Click to expand...

I don’t claim that I am an “all for”, if I were an “all for” I would be arguing that it is manmade. My contention is that someone would have to be blind not to see that something is going on with the weather.

These armadillos have been on the march for the last five years that I know of. I used to see them mostly in Texas, and Oklahoma now its southern Nebraska that they have been spotted. I head of them in Colorado but that might just have been one the jarred loose from a truck tandem. That’s not unheard of; the things are like a damn rock.:2wave:
 
bowerbird said:
Hi J=mac - Yup it is me again

And once again I am asking if you have any evidence at all because I have yet to see anything that is not cherry picked, misquoted ,obfusticated or just plain made up from a denialist camp.

There has been no "debunking" there cannot be because the denialists basically do not know enough science to put together a decent argument let alone a scientific critique
Click to expand...

Ok... so, the sun goes out tomorrow... how much CO2 do we have to produce to offset the sun?

The funny thing was that all the BIG DAMNING studies that came out from the 1997-2005 area have ALL been shown to be completely overblown... in example :
- Polar bears can swim
- Forests are regrowing
- crustaceans are compensating with thicker shells
- plants convert CO2->O2 more efficiently at about double our current atmospheric CO2 levels (also, reaches toxicity at about a thousand times atmosphere levels currently)


Also, if the "environmentalists" TRULY cared about the environment they would be FREAKING OUT at all the open air GMO food and animal testing that's going on... they would care about LEGITIMATE toxins that were are spewing into the atmosphere that cause REAL environmental damage that is verifiable, etc...

In other words, if environmentalists ACTUALLY CARED they would present a holistic argument, ways to deal with these sub-issues individually and gather lobby groups targeting each sub-issue.

Instead, we are focused on concepts like 'cap and trade' and 'carbon taxes' that are absolutely worthless, are distributed to private, for profit businesses and promise to go to 'offsets' like maybe someone will plant a tree in some third world country with the BILLIONS UPON BILLIONS that the "ever increasing" taxes would represent (everytime carbon taxes are presented it's always sold as an ever increasing tax on breathing).
 
BmanMcfly said:
Ok... so, the sun goes out tomorrow... how much CO2 do we have to produce to offset the sun?

The funny thing was that all the BIG DAMNING studies that came out from the 1997-2005 area have ALL been shown to be completely overblown... in example :
- Polar bears can swim
- Forests are regrowing
- crustaceans are compensating with thicker shells
- plants convert CO2->O2 more efficiently at about double our current atmospheric CO2 levels (also, reaches toxicity at about a thousand times atmosphere levels currently)


Also, if the "environmentalists" TRULY cared about the environment they would be FREAKING OUT at all the open air GMO food and animal testing that's going on... they would care about LEGITIMATE toxins that were are spewing into the atmosphere that cause REAL environmental damage that is verifiable, etc...

In other words, if environmentalists ACTUALLY CARED they would present a holistic argument, ways to deal with these sub-issues individually and gather lobby groups targeting each sub-issue.

Instead, we are focused on concepts like 'cap and trade' and 'carbon taxes' that are absolutely worthless, are distributed to private, for profit businesses and promise to go to 'offsets' like maybe someone will plant a tree in some third world country with the BILLIONS UPON BILLIONS that the "ever increasing" taxes would represent (everytime carbon taxes are presented it's always sold as an ever increasing tax on breathing).
Click to expand...

You only are passing by the whole concept of science aren't you? Ever heard of a meta-study?

And I also note that you are only re-iterating what some one else has once said because you have failed to link to any of those "studies" (Which I am betting are for the most part someone's opinion on a blog somewhere)
 
Cyborg said:
The Title to this article is FALSE. If you read their own PDF article only 5% of the scientists were climatologists. The others were in other fields. The article Proves "Nothing"

>>>>>> 97% of active climatologists agree that human activity is causing global warming : Deltoid <<<<<<<<

Many of those Scientists were being asked for their opinion. There is nothing to indicate that any of them had reviewed the Data for Scientific analysis, methodology or other. Nothing is indicated what "all" of them did as far as research. If you add up those that might be related - you come up to about 40%. 40% of 3,146 = a little over 1,200 Scientists.

10,257 Scientists were asked to participate. Only 3,146 responded to the survey. The Petition you dissed has almost ten times as many Scientists who agree otherwise.
Your blowing Smoke!
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
Click to expand...

And what is the total number of scientists in the USA alone - don't let me tell you because I didn't believe the labour statistics when I first saw them.

But what does it matter? You own link states

seems that the debate on the
authenticity of global warming and the
role played by human activity is largely
nonexistent among those who understand
the nuances and scientific basis
of long-term
climate processes. The
challenge, rather, appears to be how
to effectively communicate this fact to
policy makers and to a public that continues
to mistakenly perceive debate
among scientists.
Click to expand...

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

As for your claim that there was a poor response - mailed surveys ALWAYS have a poor response rate
 
The Earth in the past has gone through large weather cyclical changes. Co2 from Man had NOTHING to do with it. They are growing about 2500 acres of crops in Greenland as the present time.

In the estimated years of 950 - 1250 Crops were also grown in Greenland by Vikings.

That was followed in 1500 - 1700 by the "Little Ice Age"

About 300 years separate the periods.

Up until 1980 these same Scientists were predicting an ICE AGE.

Perhaps some of you forgot that Europe had some of the Coldest Winters in over a hundred years 2-3 years ago.

There is data that suggests we could plunge in an ICE AGE similar to the one 10,000 years ago.

With the additional increase in rainfall - according to some Scientists all it would take to pricipetate it woud be a large Volcanic eruption that blew enough ash into the air to take a year to all clear out. That would be enough of a trigger for Snow - ten feet in Texas and more North of that.

If I was looking for a culprit - for CO2 I would look at deforestation as the Cause. Plants clean the CO2 out of the air.

AFrica and South America have had about half of the land deforested for crops and lumber.
Just think about how much area that one tree has with 50,000 leaves working to clean the air of CO2. Cut a a couple of million miles of trees down and you eliminate a lot of CO2 removal.

Again the Stats on mans contribution for CO2 is 3% not 10% - 90%.

I have never said and will agree we have had some exceptional weather. I just don't believe it is caused by man.

As far as high temperatures - today we have the ability to report every minor change in temperature and snowfall. We had hot periods 50 years ago. I lived in Chicago and we had 102 and 103 temperatures - higher than any recorded in the last 20 years.

LOOK AT THIS WEBSITE for Historical High temperatures - We are not nor have we been even close on most of them!

Record Highest Temperatures by State — Infoplease.com
 
Global warming aside... renewable resources ARE the way of the future. Unless America invests more resources into this industry we will be quickly passed up by foreign countries. To not jump on this bandwagon would be a poor choice.
 
BmanMcfly said:
Also, if the "environmentalists" TRULY cared about the environment they would be FREAKING OUT at all the open air GMO food
Click to expand...

Let me just stop you right there. There is absolutely NO scientific evidence that genetically modified foods are bad for either the environment or unhealthy for us as individuals.

Now, back to the subject at hand...
 
jamesrage said:
A cult would suggest that has a small number of devotees.The man made global warming fairy tale is full blown religion with millions of devoted religious followers who hang on to every word that their reverend AL Gore and other enviro-nuts preaches. They recycle their trash, buy only recycled or recyclable products, They buy energy star appliances, refuse to buy bottled water, eat only organic products, spread the word how the world how the polar icecaps will melt and the world will be flooded, Demand cap and trade laws, demand carbon credits, don't want any drilling, support ethanol and a whole bunch of other things to show their enviroreligious devotion.
Click to expand...

They sound so horrible! It takes a really terrible human being to try to stop the Earth from being destroyed. Have they no shame?
 
Jetboogieman said:
We all know where this debate is going.

Generations from now will curse us for not acting on this problem.

But GW Deniers ravaging this thread in 5... 4... 3...
Click to expand...

You should start pumping fresh air into tanks so you'll have some when we run out.
 
Mustachio said:
They sound so horrible! It takes a really terrible human being to try to stop the Earth from being destroyed. Have they no shame?
Click to expand...

Many of those things don't do **** to help the environment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom