• #1
    Skepticism is healthy thing.

    "Far from being "anti-science" or a crime that should be punished, popular skepticism about global warming is entirely reasonable. For the masses to accept a complicated theory, you have to show them results. You can't just blame them all for not being climatological experts."
  • #6
    I absolutely agree - just because I'm skeptical doesn't mean I'm uneducated or unable to be convinced. I feel the same way about evolution - it's a nice theory, but I just want to see some legitimate predictions (that can only be legitimately explained by the theory, the whole theory, and nothing but the theory) come true before I completely throw myself info it. I'm not saying either theory is false, I'm just saying that the burden of proof for neither has been met.
  • #55
    Then you know very little about evolution science, it is supported in EVERY multitude of the sciences, not ONE disagrees with it, the other sciences crumble if not true, but it has shown to be so.

    Scientists made legitimate predictions about Tiktaalik and they turned out to be true. Nearly every species has an evolutionary link that has been demonstrated time and time again. Because you do not choose to learn it, does not weaken it at all. It is still true whether you believe it or not.
  • #74
    @Pete-o Yes, yes, I've heard all this before. Don't bother giving me more links; I still have plenty to look at from the last nauseatingly long bullying session I got embroiled in on this same topic elsewhere on Politix. Great, you have a couple of real-world examples that support a couple of the more limited claims of evolution - I'm still waiting for you to show me a handful of completely new species that descended from others and that cannot at all interbreed with their ancestors. Don't waste your breath; attacking me won't make me any less skeptical but, if anything, will only make me further resistant to your claims.

    Also, I'm really not sure how physics (one of the "EVERY multitude of the sciences") crumbles if evolutionary biology isn't true.
  • #96
    It is as long as it isn't crazy. Being skeptical of 97% of people who are experts in their field is simply stupid.
  • R Load more replies

  • #31
    .... in other words.... it's all a crock of sh*t.

    climate change and the industry that goes along with it, are designed to control the population,period.
    the global intergovernmental statists are using global cooling(70's)... global warming(80's-90's).. and now climate change... to do what exactly? tell people where they can live... tell people what they should drive... if they drive... tell people what's your heat will be in your home and your cooling... in some countries tell you how many children you are allowed to have( which will likely be coming to a country near you soon).. and what else ? to raise your taxes.... and for what in exchange? nothing more useless 3000 page reports that use the word "risk " five and a half times per page.... and using the word risk five and a half times per page is not the same as using the word PROOF.
  • #60
    "...what they should drive... if they drive..." Pant while you're peddling your bicycle and you're in deep trouble.
  • #75
    Agenda 21.

    Oh, and let's not forget the pamphlets you get from the power company wanting to pit a regulator on your central AC system...
  • #141
    "Why It's Still Worth Arguing About Global Warming" .... key word ... "Worth" ... probably in the billions =)

    It's always about the money ... always has been ... always will be.

    Just another scam that has been discredited by most reputable scientist that aren't on the take!
  • #150

    "Oh, and let's not forget the pamphlets you get from the power company wanting to pit a regulator on your central AC system... "

    I haven't seen that one yet. What are they calling a regulator?
  • R Load more replies

  • #16
    It's a trust issue.

    We can not trust that the scientific data is true and accurate when you have verifiable percentage of the scientists lying, altering data and attempting to cover up:

    Hacker breaks in to University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (aka CRU) and exposes
    1079 emails and 72 documents conversing back and forth about altering data and hiding emails demonstrating the alteration of data.

    Associated Press caught blatantly lying about global warming with deceptive photo and caption

    The Associated Press had to retract a photo it released on July 27 with the caption, "The shallow meltwater lake is occurring due to an unusually warm period."

    "In fact, the water accumulates in this way every summer," AP admitted in a note to editors, adding that the photo was doubly misleading because "the camera used by the North Pole Environment Observatory has drifted hundreds of miles from its original position, which was a few dozen miles from the pole." #

    The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

    Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.

    The New Zealand Government’s chief climate advisory unit NIWA is under fire for allegedly massaging raw climate data to show a global warming trend that wasn’t there.

    The scandal breaks as fears grow worldwide that corruption of climate science is not confined to just Britain’s CRU climate research centre.

    "When prominent “scientists” from governments and universities are caught lying again and again about issues as dire as climate change, is it any wonder there are a great many people that have lost all trust in the so called “experts”?

    Is it any wonder why many people are now skeptical of any information that is put out by such questionable sources?

    In addition to the often false and misleading information being dispensed from many “scientists”, there seems to be a level of arrogance, self worship, and mutual admiration that is at times shocking."
  • #252
    It's not a trust issue, it's a money issue... a lot of money is being spent in an attempt to cast doubts about the science. Your proof their getting their moneys worth.
  • #269
    @MarkColwell - Mark...this series of if/then statements may help you understand:

    IF there is enough empirical evidence that man is the cause for global climactic change THEN the scientists would not need to alter the numbers to prove it.

    IF the science is not agenda driven THEN scientists would not need to alter the evidence to meet the agenda.

    IF the leaders in the fight against "man-made" global climatic change were sincere THEN they would not be flying around in private jets to spread their message while making millions.

    My friend, you're being lied to...and you're being led.

    No one denies that global climatic change exists...simply that mankind is incapable of making a difference in either direction.
  • #291
    @AntiPorcheria If some scientists were altering numbers or evidence... I don't believe 97% of climate scientists would support the idea of man made climate change. You have a massive body of evidence supporting man made climate change... of course there is going to be some studies or evidence amongst that body that is substandard or where errors were made.

    A lot of money is being spent trying to find errors and problems and blow them out of proportion so as to discredit climate change, and in the end the Climategate conspiracy theories are disproven. Get half of all climate scientists to admit that man is having little or no impact on climate change and we'll at least be able to agree that there is some controversy, until that happens it looks to me like the science is settled.
  • #4
    I posted this a couple of years ago and still believe it:
    "Without a doubt the things we humans do affect our environment and we have done some incredibly stupid things. But, changing the entire climate of the Earth is not one of them. There is little doubt that, as world population grows, everything about our environment is affected. However, the myth of Global Warming is a farce. Those who would profit from things as stupid as "Carbon Credits" and "Cap & Trade" are pushing the myth for their own monetary and political gain.
    I am sure that there are those among us who want everyone to stop all modern activity and go back to being the hunter-gatherers of prehistoric times when the only things to pollute the air were flatulence and swamp gas. Now, I have always loved the outdoors, hunted, and fished. And, I have been a strong supporter of laws that stop water pollution and un-necessary release of harmful gases into the atmosphere. But, enough is enough...while we certainly should do what is needed to protect the environment, we cannot change the Earth's atmosphere to suit the politicians and junk scientists. The focus should be on the individual and not the "collective."
  • #54
    So slash and burn baby? The focus should be on the individual and not the rest of the planet? This is what's wrong with the me generation concept, what's good for me and damn the consequences.

    There is no doubt we can change the atmosphere, we changed it before with carbon production and we can change it by reducing that carbon production. Every major scientific organization supports the evidence for Climate Change.

    Not worrying about "the collective" is horrible way to go through life, for most people, helping others and understanding what needs to be done is altruistic. I , for one, want to help my community and can't understand the selfishness of someone who couldn't be bothered.
  • #77
    @Pete-o Not so...The problem with your stance is a lack of personal responsibility. You choose the "herd mentality." You want an all-knowing chief lemming to lead you. Remember, our nation was founded on the principal of individual freedom. The last thing we need is for some "world organization" to force regulation upon us that is unnecessary. Common sense regulation is absolutely necessary, but we should regulate our own country and its citizens according to the needs of our nation.
    All of the "multilateral protocols" in the world will not solve the problem. What happens is that the USA is expected to fall in lock step with the little nations of the world while the major polluting nations refuse to do anything. China, Russia, and India refuse to share any of the responsibility. They know that their economies will suffer because their manufacturing infrastructure is unregulated.
    You will never do anything unless you convince the individual to do his/her part. That is why your herd mentality fails...We The People of the USA are individuals and we like it like that.
  • #88
    @seedtick Economic win out. But the coal problem has been solved it is now a matter of implementation. the newest issue of wired has the outline for the fix.
  • #95
    Funny because when it was the ozone layer we had a definite impact, changed what was wrong, and reversed course. So if humans can have a direct cause on something as huge as the global ozone why is it so hard to believe that they could impact global temperatures and climate?

    Hopefully you're old and will be dead before it become catastrophic, if you're under 40 you should look into preparation...
  • #114
    @Pete-o Then give up your vehicle, get off the Internet and live in the dark.

    Sounds altruistic enough to me.

    The 'global warming' myth is all about acting first and thinking later. The Conservative approach is that far too much is a stake to jump feet first into science that is NOT settled and is still evolving.

    However, don't let that stop you from doing your part! ;-)
  • R Load more replies

  • #2
    Here's the problem with the lie of "global warming." NONE, and I mean NOT ONE of the predictions by these chicken little leftists have come true. NOT ONE. If CO2 is causing it, then why the end of rising temps when CO2 level have exploded? NOTHING these leftists say is true, nor does it make sense. Let's talk about what this is really about......income redistribution. Redistributing money from richer nations(the US) to the poor countries.....all in an effort to "combat global warming." What a bunch of leftist tripe. What this is really about is global welfare and global income redistribution. Listen to what the messiah said...."under my energy plan, your electric rates will necessarily skyrocket." That's right. If the messiah had his way, your electric rates would "necessarily skyrocket." But he's for the poor ain't he lefties. So much so, that he wants electric rates to "necessarily skyrocket."
    Here's the real truth. Earth's climate is cyclical. It gets warmer, it gets colder. It gets wetter, it gets drier. NOTHING the income redistributionists do will stop the NATURALLY OCCURRING CLIMATE SHIFTS to stop. There is no NORMAL climate.
  • #24

    Exactly...if some of the predictions had been true they would be believable...maybe. But what IS true is how it's been used to allow agencies like the EPA to run rip shod over businesses and land owners on theories alone and no law to restrain their asses!
  • #35
    @BravoJuliet "run rip shop and no law to restrain them." Exactly.
    You would think, using an adage from my grandfather, that "even a blind hog finds an acorn every now and then", one just ONE of their predictions would come true, but they haven't. So why anybody would believe ANYTHING these hacks say is beyond me....let me take that back. The religion of gore ism gives them "faith" that it will happen, even after all the predictions are proven false. I do know how they can get a prediction right.....just announce that somewhere in the US, there will be a flood next year, and that will prove global warming is true.
  • R Load more replies

  • #28
    Theories that are not able to predict the actions of nature generally require revision. Occam's razor. If the theory can't make predictions that are born out by real data, you revise the theory. It appears Al Gore's company of priests have not studied science long enough to understand the difference between a theory and a law. Or for that matter between science and religion. I believe in global warming is the statement of a religious person.
  • #43
    Well a theory is as close to fact as most things in science get. The big question is if it is even a theory at this point. Based on the poor data returns on their predictions I am saying it is still in a hypothetical stage.
  • #101
    The predictions are that adding more CO2 will increase global temps, what we can't predict (because it's never happened before in human history) is the impact quickly rising temps will have on weather patterns.
  • #201
    You're the one who clearly has no understanding of science. And on top of that, clearly you're ignoring all of the real data.
  • #10
    Those who question the validity of the claims of the 'global warming' cheerleaders are not anti-science, but rather pro-reality. That reality is the recognition that science is human, and inherently uncertain. Bloated mouthpieces like Al Gore seek to silence the discussion by claiming the science is 'settled' merely because they don't want to talk about it anymore.

    Much the same tactic was used to silence those who questioned Barack Obama's qualifications by squealing about racism.

    To add on to what TheJimmy says, to be skeptical of outlandish claims is not merely healthy, but (in this case) extremely patriotic. There are those who wish to glam on to any fad that will diminish human accomplishment...and America's accomplishment in particular.

    "Global warming' has been debunked with the passage of time. THAT is the benefit of choosing thoughtful, reasoned responses to scientific 'discoveries.' Because, more often than not, the passage of time shows those 'discoveries' to be utterly and completely wrong.
  • #69

    Exactly and many people still believe the Earth is flat even with overwhelming consensus.
  • R Load more replies

  • #7
    All except the part that indicates global warming is not real. Of course it is real but there is NO credible proof it is significantly caused by humans. It is a nature caused process with a mind of its own, not importantly effected by what humans do. Scientist with their uncertainty and disclaimers admit as much.
  • #81
    So true. The Medieval Warming Period points to just those circumstances. It warmed, significantly, but there were no coal fired power plants, or car exhaust going into the atmosphere...unless you want to count the diesel exhaust from the Viking longships they used on their raids and exploration of the North Atlantic!... ;)
  • #102
    Yeah, 7 billion people, a 100 year world wide industrial revolution, billions of cars, coal, oil, fracking... To think that these have no impact when the experts say it does is simply ignoring the problem and hoping it will go away.

    Did you have the same opinion when it was the ozone layer?
  • #115
    What bothers me is the uncertainty science expresses about its human causation theories.

    I'm not ready to empty my pockets for a maybe.
  • #191
    @AceLuby Just because one does not believe in the global warming theories and how some want to solve it by carbon taxes, western nations having to pay for developing nations etc...does not mean we believe in polluting at will. I believe that we should try to curb pollution just as good enviromental stewardship.

    When certain areas of the earth were once warm and had vegetation(such as northern Canada) and are now the opposite, what do you blame that on? Natural climate change that the earth has seen before?
  • R Load more replies

  • #5
    Environmentalists need to change their strategy. They need to move away from the save the Earth crap. The Earth is going to be fine, the Earth will continue to exist until the Sun engulfs it in flame 1 billion years from now. But rising water or temperatures isn't going to destroy our planet. WE'RE the ones who need saving. Rising water and temperatures kill us. So it really should be save the humans, because we're the ones risking extinction. If the climate changes as predicted, we're totally fucked.

    I guarantee that if the environmentalists always went with save the people you'd have more people accepting science.
  • #13
    You're mistaken, I'm sorry to say. The same people who deny science on the issue are also really bent that poor people get food from the government. I don't think they give two figs about saving people.
  • #82
    @Zazziness No one is denying GW...only how much of it is from our contribution...that's the sticking point. The Earth warmed before without us, you know.
  • #155
    @AceLuby No,,they deny that we are the sole cause of the current warming trend.

    It was well documented that it warmed significantly during the Middle Ages...without our interference.
  • R Load more replies

  • #147
    Since the earth's temperature hasn't changed at all in 2 decades is proof enough that the global warming hoax is just that, a hoax and I want to know who will benefit financially if we all buy into this.
  • #300
    But it has changed. It has consistently DECREASED for the past 14 years, and it's not as much about money as it is about CONTROL, as in World Domination.
  • #3
    A good movie to watch is "an inconsistent truth." You can not watch this and believe in the farce of global warming, ur uh, cooling, ur uh, change, ur uh, whatever they call it to explain the current weather.
  • #103
    Yay for propaganda paid for by private corporations in the same way cigarette companies denied health impacts for decades.
  • #117
    @AceLuby wrong this documentary was not paid for by anybody except for the man who put it together. In fact, he turned down any money to avoid just such an accusation.
  • #129
    @daclark1911 now come on. He doesn't want to sacrifice, he wants everybody else to sacrifice. When his electric bill doubles, he'll blame the electric company, not an "energy plan that will make your electric rates skyrocket." When he has to pay $50,000 for a tin can on wheels, he'll blame the manufacturer of the tin can, not the lying politician that forced them to build it. And when temps rise more, he'll say, "it would have been worse if we hadn't made everybody poor by instituting policies that doubled the cost of energy."
  • #145

    Well for now their happy demonizing Koch Brothers but you're right, their consumption habits are the same as our own and they gladly line up for gas as we all do while telling those of us with some degree of common sense to see their habits are our habits and we listen as they scream how stupid we are to perpetuate the problem when their carbon footprints match our own.

    Where you and I come from we call these types hypocrites.
  • R Load more replies

  • #134
    People are not recognizing the fact that when fossil fuels are burned they give off heat.(That's why we burn them). They also give off CO2 as a by-product. How much warming is caused by the greenhouse effect is debatable, but there is no doubt that the heat emissions, alone, from our energy use greatly exceed the amount that can be attributed to the rise in atmospheric temperature. The focus on CO2 has led to expensive and counterproductive efforts to capture and store CO2. Also detrimental, it has encouraged the increase in permitting and licensing of nuclear power. Aside from the usual objections to nuclear power, heat emissions from nuclear power are more than twice the total heat as its electrical output. Replacement of fossil and nuclear energy with renewables is the only thing that will reverse "climate change", but there slim chance that this will be done on a meaningful scale.
  • #65
    Its the Cost / Benefit Analysis that I would like to see focused on more. Far too often 'climate concerned' people just want to glaze over the costs and the benefits... in some form of religious-like zeal to be as green as possible just for the sake of being green.

    Maybe we are having an effect, and maybe its too extreme to try to change it. Such is the fate of this world burdened with our people.

    If you can show me reasonable steps that have measurable benefit then I'm all for it, but I need to be sold on the idea before I'm willing to take any action. I'm not willing to change my lifestyle for an immeasurable gain towards an ideal.
  • #112
    If climate deniers are wrong and we do nothing the 'cost' is the possible extinction of the human race.

    If 'climate concerned' people are wrong and we do something we leave a cleaner environment for our children.

    Decide how you want, but to me it looks pretty simple.
  • #58
    scientific "facts" are subject to change daily as new data is gathered, bottom line no one is right about any of this,in school in the 60-70s we discussed a cooling trend we were in, a part of how our atmosphere works, warms and cools, we will eventually be in the next ice age, no tax or regulations will ever change this scientific fact, we are due for it, but the current population will not live long enough to see it, probably still thousands of years off, so we should just chill out and try to enjoy the world we have right in front of us
  • #113
    You don't think we understand more about climate than we did 45+ years ago when we did calculation on slide rulers?
  • #265
    @Cal Actually, it was global 'cooling' back then, remember? Some folks wanted the government to take steps to keep the atmosphere warm.


    As I've said time and again, scientific knowledge increases with time. For that matter, all knowledge does tend to get better.(Like if folks could see where we are today back in 2008...but I digress...) To advocate radical changes in policy based on the latest scientific fad is foolish, and is only advocated by those who will either profit directly from it or to advance an agenda they cherish.

    It's a good thing we sat this one out.
  • #283
    @Jeff_Woehrle you remember it as I do, In school we discussed this and even walking thru the Mall there were people doing surveys on what the public thought should be done to "save our earth" remember the Hippies, never have I ever herd of global warming until the last few years, I think when the dems get power they find new ways to control the wallet, but no matter what they want to do they will never control the climate, no matter what new taxes they invent, I wish they would either go away or face reality
  • R Load more replies

  • #229
    If they weren't ignored, that fact was not made readily available. All I heard was that we were dumping CO2 into the atmosphere. What I heard wasn't science, but hysteria. I'm not going to support the repeal of the Industrial Revolution based on that.

    This isn't an open cycle. Plants use CO2 for photosynthesis and put oxygen back into the atmosphere.
  • #52
    To quote the late Michael Crichton: "I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

    Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

    There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period." ( )
  • #72
    But there is support of the evidence, support of gravity, evolution, genetics, physics and so on. It's true that one person can change the scientific thinking on any given endeavor, but when a patient is being treated for cancer, there exists a general consensus on the methods to combat that disease.
  • #107
    Reproducible results like adding more CO2 causes global rise in temps? Yep, reproducible and continually happening.
  • #156
    @AceLuby And yet even with increases in CO2 emissions, temperatures don't always rise - nor do they stay elevated, nor is it directly correlative between X tons of CO2 and Y degrees temperature rise.
  • #212
    When you cite a novelist as a scientific authority, that speaks volumes about how bankrupt the global warming denial crowd really is.
  • R Load more replies

  • #30
    It's like people wanting to argue about fairy tales. No matter how hard you argue, you're still arguing about something that isn't real.
  • #140
    I see what you did there. Bravo good sir! Although Climate Change is a religion, you can tell by the believers of it.
  • #272
    @Joshacham Religion is religion. And the Island state of Tuvalu is drowning slowly because of rising ocean Levels. I think Reality takes Precedent.
  • #299
    You say "You can't just blame the masses for not being climatological experts." You can't blame us for having common sense either. To quote your article "there was a marked flattening, even decline in temperature from about 1940-1980, and another since 2000, despite a consistent increase in CO2 emissions." That means we've been in a cooling trend for 54 out of the past 74 years. No matter what a bunch of educated idiots who call themselves scientists try to tell us, anyone with common sense can see that "global warming" is not happening. And, anyone who's paying the least bit of attention to politics can see that it's a scam perpetrated on us by politicians as an excuse to try to impose a socialist one-World Government. Science ceases to be science when politicians are paying the "scientists" to manufacture the conclusions that benefit them and their nefarious schemes.
  • #319
    Global warming research is being paid for the same way that tobacco research, lead poisoning research and all other University based scientific research has always been paid for and opposition research is being paid for the same way it was for tobacco research, lead poisoning research and all other industry research designed to protect their self interests and not the interests of all of us.
  • #256
    It does not matter if global warming is real or not. The real question here is do we allow the assholes in DC / UN to control us even more than they do now.
  • #320
    So if legitimate scientists as in every academy of science of every developed nation on earth says the earth as we know it will be irreversibly changed and they try and warn us then that is some asshole trying to control us? Sounds like more of a friend to me. When in history has the scientific community, in the long run failed us? Temporary setbacks happen but in the long run the same funding and science has improved the quality of our lives. Was science wrong about tobacco? Leaded gas? DDT? Acid rain? The world being round?
  • #322
    @Rider You are misundering me. I don't know the science well enough to say one way or another. BUT I do see that the assholes in DC will use this to take more control over us. BTW if it is real then the people will find a way to deal with it. We don't need the DC assholes!
  • #323
    I agree that the politicians in DC are unlikely to be effective or have our best interests in mind because we have little to do with who is elected. You say "The people will find a way to deal with it"? How is that possible, what little representation we had died with the Supreme Courts Citizens United and Mcutcheon decisions. The special interests that pay for elections and are allowed to influence elections anonymously and with no limitations thanks to these decisions now rule the country. The Assholes in Washington are taking more control over us for their masters, follow the money, the DC politicians are just the brokers.
  • #255
    The AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) movement is a cult. It behaves like cults, has an essentially religious character, wants to punish heretics, skeptics and non-believers, and is structured like a religious movement. It begins with the notion that mankind has sinned, the retribution will be upon us, that only sacrifices and proper beliefs can save us, "atheists" must be punished and that if we behave and think correctly we will move into a golden age of purity and cleanliness. This is a powerful message for liberal secularists who reject ordinary religion. It provides and psychological satisfaction of a religion without the necessity of a supreme being and substituting the earth for a deity. Like all causes, cults and crusades it offers hope for the future and it also had a strong tendency to degenerate into fanaticism and irrationality. It is an easy thing for political and ideological opportunists to exploit and this is exactly what has happened. The huge "feel good" payoff for promoting purity is very usefu for schemers and con-men.
  • #321
    Look at the record of the scientific community and the record of industry in regards to the issues each has supported. The Scientific Community is batting close to 1000
  • R Load more comments...