Global warming skeptics growing in numbers - Page 25

ag54 · 07-02-2009, 04:26 PM

but what about all the furry, cuddly animals that live there? they deserve respect too <3

I love polar bears!!

http://conservativexpress.blogspot.c...olar-bear.html

mini · 07-02-2009, 05:35 PM

There's a really easy way to answer the global warming debate. Put a couple of deny-ers on an icefloe the size of a football field. Airlift food in. Then as their floating paradise shrinks, see how long it takes before they demand to be let off.

Better, put them on a larger icefloe with a couple of cuddlies. Repeat.

ag54 · 07-02-2009, 05:43 PM

I think I already saw that exact post earlier in this thread - I hope you are planning on footnoting your source.

Academic dishonesty/plagiarism can get you kicked out of CC, after you've been in front of the Honor's Board, of course

mini · 07-02-2009, 05:50 PM

Old people can't commit plagiarism, especially plagiarism of themselves (if that's what it is), because they can't form intent, and they can't remember back that far.

(Gosh, do you really read back through 350-post threads? Must be a slow day....)

kluge · 07-02-2009, 05:58 PM

Randomthots - the Heartland Institute is an outright propaganda mill created to lobby for the tobacco corporations, which has widened out with funding from oil companies and right wing foundations to now also deny global warming, along with their staple of denying that second hand smoke is bad for anyone. The document you linked to is an example of their grossly dishonest work. The authors of the glossy Heartland Institute "study" you link to are not scientists. If you're interested in the actual report of VonStorch and Bray you can find it here: http://dvsun3.gkss.de/BERICHTE/GKSS_...SS_2007_11.pdf

Don't be a sucker for the underhanded tactics of the likes of the Heartland Institute.

pugmadkate · 07-02-2009, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Totally irrelevant. If oil approaches $150/bbl for any significant period of time ANWR will be drilled. Economic needs will overpower environmental needs every time.

I get it. You'd rather destroy the planet than face reality. You continue to advocate for that, I'll continue to advocate for reason.

Quote:

an extremely inhospitable area, small in size, and devoid of anything remotely scenic.

Oh, I love this. If you wouldn't want to someday drive your RV there and step outside for five minutes for a photograph, then it has no value.

I'm going to stick with science on this one, others can feel free to go with business and tourism. Oy.

ag54 · 07-02-2009, 06:23 PM

Mini, Haha, no I actually remembered the post as I've been lurking for days.

My memory is still pretty good. Now my eye sight is a different story- arms are definitely getting shorter these days!

catahoula · 07-02-2009, 06:46 PM

Quote:

There's a really easy way to answer the global warming debate. Put a couple of deny-ers on an icefloe the size of a football field. Airlift food in. Then as their floating paradise shrinks, see how long it takes before they demand to be let off.

(sorry, but if it was good enough for a repeat, a third posting of it couldn't hurt.)

mini - excellent imagery and it would certainly save on rope and associated gibbet costs, but you seem to think that ocean ice stays in the same spot it freezes in.

pug - thanks for proving my answer as to why ANWR hasn't been drilled to be the correct one.

fundingfather · 07-02-2009, 06:52 PM

Quote:

I'm going to stick with science on this one, others can feel free to go with business and tourism. Oy.

Sorry, but I didn't see any posting from you concerning science.

randomthots · 07-02-2009, 07:27 PM

Kluge,

This is from the study which you posted the link to:

"As the data seems to suggest, the matter is far from being settled in the scientific arena."

Sorry, but in this case, I think Heartland has summarized the study truthfully and honestly. As for the study, I'd read it before, so just googled to find the results again. Thanks for the direct link.

I'm looking forward to the results from their 2007 survey.

Mr Payne · 07-02-2009, 07:48 PM

Quote:

I get it. You'd rather destroy the planet than face reality. You continue to advocate for that, I'll continue to advocate for reason.

Quote me where I advocate anything. I'm just telling you the reality of the situation. If petroleum prices rise high enough the stuff will get drilled.

kluge · 07-02-2009, 08:01 PM

Randomthots, apparently von Storch would disagree with you. He writes that he would consider a fair summation of the study would be:

Quote:

“Plainly, there are many scientific questions open; we need many refinements and some revisions of knowledge, but the basic concept is really broadly accepted in the scientific community - that man is changing climate in a detectable way, and that this change will grow to levels causing significant impacts beyond the range of natural variability; that we may limit these changes by reducing the emission of greenhouse gases” - Climate Feedback: Climate scientists' views on climate change: a survey

(Interesting discussion at the link.)

randomthots · 07-02-2009, 10:30 PM

^^^???
In #370, The quote I cited was from Bray and von Storch in their 2003 report. I think the two statements (including what you quoted in #372) are not exclusive.

For instance, in the link you provide in #372,von Storch gives a chart which displays the results on a scale from 1-7 to the question “Climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes.”

53% agree (1-3)
13% are neutral (4)
29% disagree (5-7)

So, it is broadly accepted in that 53% agree, but not settled in the scientific arena, as demonstrated by the fact 29% disagree, and 13% are undecided. My point here is that a significant number of climate scientists do not accept AGW.

It's also interesting that many climate scientists do not agree that GCMs can predict 10 or 100 years into the future.

And although there was a shift towards "believing" in AGW from 1996 to 2003, my own guess is this will shift back when the results of any subsequent surveys are given. But that's just me

catahoula · 07-02-2009, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Nuclear fusion is a long way off. And spending $2-3 billion a year isn't going to speed it up.

No, but spending more would... and a desperate need might see a solution to the fusion process.

I don't see a desperate need yet, just a vilification of fossil fuels for political reasons.

kluge · 07-02-2009, 11:17 PM

Well, that is certainly true. That is just you.