I know we just did gobal warming, but this guy just puts it into perspective better than anyone else i've read. So i'm ready to do battle again if anyone's still interested.
Earth got about 0.7 degrees Celsius warmer in the 20th century while it increased its GDP by 1,800 percent, by one estimate.
Continued
25 comments:
I'm always up for a debunk Global Warming scrapfest...let me at 'em.
As soon as Nonni stops demanding a HUGELY POLLUTING aircraft that she DOES NOT RATE, I'll give a tinker's damn about a polar bear in Santaland.
and your point is?
i don't want to get into the fisticuffs regarding the global warming issue, but i just want to say that this is a classic example of pulling a statistic out of a hat and taking it to it's (almost) extreme in trying to prove causation.
you can take that to mean that yes, global affluence and/or gdp however you want to define it, was caused by the warming of the earth in the 20th century? or was it those crematorium ovens, or was it the heat generated industrial development and fossil fuel emissions.
...
oh, and what's your problem with speaker of the house pelosi, seejanemom? hate to see a woman in a real position of power and influence? is it only 'hunky husbands' who have the right to make the decisions around the house and the nation? you're a bright woman seejanemom, why don't you get a job and see what it's like to live in the real world.
Bravo, Anita.
I told Rhino I wont bother with this topic anymore here.
I see Jane hasnt participated anyway, typical.
See jane cut and run.
anita why do you assume her problem with pelosi has anything to do with gender?
Or do you think that since she's a woman we should be nicer to her even though we think she's a typical limousine liberal?
lily, she's not running, she's fighting. You won't even engage because the facts get in the way or your argument.
Or because she only comes once, so responding to her would be constructive...why?
Jane seems to be the "sprinkle comments so I get traffic by reciprocity" type. Not the discussion type. Not judging, just saying that it does no good to sit and write anything here to her.
When have you ever seen her come back for a rebuttal?
get real, Rhino, stop being stupid.
As for you, why should there be a response to comments like "THE LEFT hates America" or the troops, or industry, or..whatever.
Or accusations that we all hold socialist placards. And so on. As long as you do that, its a waste of time.
What you dont talk about are the people who make up the numerical majority of Americans. And thats not commies OR freaks like you. You only focus on the fringe positions and apply them to all. Which is lazy.
I could give fifty examples of how the current administration "abuses" the troops- and link to first hand accounts. But you will dismiss them all anyway. Depleted uranium exposure? Oh well, sucks for them. Lack of training for an insurgency? Oh well, the embrace with open arms thing didnt quite work out. Etc. Etc.
You wont address anything objectively about practical ways the troops have been harmed. So, I should debate whether the left hate the troops all day? You dont listen to what anyone else says anyway. Its a waste of time.
I personally wonder why seejanemom states that the speaker of the house of the united states (person in line for the presidency) "DOES NOT RATE" a means of returning to her home state that provides her with the safety and security that any person in that position not only "deserves" but also requires. i question if this would even BE an issue (for seejanemom and others) if said speaker was a republican (or democrat, for that matter) male from california.
eb, thanks for that lively discussion about global warming.... oh wait that wasn't about global warming. you're just making up your own topic to argue about with.... yourself i guess. have fun with that.
I have seen you argue about global warming many times and to date, remain unimpressed. So, why keep doing it?
Do you argue everything I write about? I would say you RARELY argue about what I post. I'm not your groupie. Step the fuck back.
you're NOT my groupie? Wait were you ever my goupie?
How cool would that be if i had a groupie? unless that's the same thing as a stalker, because i already had one of those and it wasn't that cool.
So anyway, i'm not a groupie either but i do comment on your stuff all the time and i comment on YOUR stuff. I don't make up an argument with myself about a totally different subject in the comments section.
Global warming as you think you know it is bullshit. Don't want to argue about it? ok then go back to your echo chamber and you and dusty can talk about how W is single handedly responsible for all the ills of the entire world.
and of course now i will step back because i guess i was in your way or something. of course you could have been a little classier and just said excuse me but i guess i'm just used to dealing with women like Jane who appreciate sailors but don't sound like them in a bar fight.
Donkey and Rhino: global warming is bullshit.
Royal Society of England, National Academy of Science (US), scientific academies of the other G-8 nations, National Association for the Advancement of Science, just about every scientist not paid by Exxon: global warming is not bullshit.
Hmmm...close call.
No gary it's not even close. Those same scientists that you mention were all convinced that we were causing another ice age only 30 years ago!
if i wasn't in elementary school then i would have been throwing the bullshit flag and i would have been right. Therefore it's Rhino 1 global warmers not paid by exxon 0.
Also, if you learn how to read you will see that this authors point is that even if these scientists are correct they admit that 30 kyoto's might not make a
difference.
Again, i'll use common sense even though i know it's wasted on you and lily. I live on an island that was formed by a melting glacier. It was formed long before suv's were invented. Global warming is therefore not man made.
"An ExxonMobil-funded think tank is offering scientists or economists $10,000 to dispute the international climate report released last week that attributes climate change to human activities ..."
more here at Integrity in Science:
http://www.cspinet.org/integrity
/watch/200702051.html
...
rhino, once again, the fact that you live on an island that was formed by a retreating glacier has absolutely NO bearing on your arguement. NONE at all.
you need to take a course in logical reasoning / fallacies.
Anita, lets brake this down again.
There used to be glaciers on long island.
They melted before there were any people there.
Therefore, global warming has been occuring for longer than just the industrial revolution.
Can you argue ANY of those points?
NO.
so how can you say it's people who are causing global warming?
Rhino, that claim that all the scientists used to support global cooling, i.e. a new ice age, has been debunked long ago. Just not true.
And again, I'm not going to attempt to debunk your "science". I will just continue to form my opinions on scientific matters by listening to real scientists, not wingnut bloggers.
gary, you can listen to whoever you want but the consensus was a coming ice age in the 70's. That's a fact, no debunking happened because its the truth.
Rhino, you can't back that up because it's not true.
gary, you can't back up the grassy noll, but i can tell you that the majority of scientits (according to newsweek and national geographic) were saying we had to do something about the problem of global cooling.
Some suggestions on the extreme end of it included attempts to melt parts of the polar ice caps.
Look it up. I read the story a few weeks ago so i'm sure you can find it.
Bottom line is you and anita and lily still haven't answered the question i posed to anita which is... If the glaciers were melting before we invented our first suv, and before exxon started paying scientists then how is it that now it's man made.
Even more importantly, as i said in the post, this guy makes the point that kyoto won't do shit for the environment so why would we promote it? There is NOTHING we can do right now to curb global warming and in fact there is no need. Eventually technology will catch up and if we need to do something we will. It's a reasonable article and takes a reasonable view point. You should read it and get back to me.
There were individual scientists in the 70s who speculated about global cooling, and a Newsweek story, but never the consensus (National Academy of Science, etc) that we have today. Obviously a great deal of research has been done since then.
I'm not going to answer your glacier question. Since I am not a scientist I will continue to be guided on scientific questions by real scientists.
where is that arbiter of all things auroran when you need him?
you all ask, of whom do you speak, anita?
i saith unto thee, "it's the jew who hath no name ... or the one whose name i shall not utter at this time."
Rhino the glaciers are real but you are not understanding the time line involved. The ice caps have melted visibly in our lifetimes, its the RATE that you refuse to address when you talk about how "WE" dont have an answer to your "long island formed by glaciers" argument.
Nobody is saying that ice ages and periods of warming/cooling have never happened.
Nobody said Long island wasnt formed from a glacier.
What you are ignoring is RATE. Speed as a variable. The RATE of temperature change and atmospheric change is the problem. How FAST.
You pick one piece of a big picture as supposed proof, out of context of time and other variables. And think this looks intelligent. Because you dont know any better,maybe.
Again, your failure to recall basic high school earth science makes it very time consuming to fight with you. You can say "aw Lily cant fight facts" but pointing to Long Island like its the same as the current situation is just stupid.
You wont examine the weakness of your position just assume its everyone else's problem which is why you are a limited dumbass and people give only minimal attention to you guys beyond making jokes.
Your argument is the same as saying people have always had heart attacks so....the increase in heart disease has nothing to do with food.
Its flawed reasoning skills. Nobody can argue with something inherently stupid at its core.
All of a sudden you won't respond to me because we're not scientists?
Well guess what, you're WRONG again. The National Academy of Sciences was quoted in the Newsweek article! as was the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration!
They were wrong then and they're wrong now! but you and lily and anita can keep following them like the sheep that you are because you don't have enough confidence in yourself to form your own opinion.
You won't answer my question because you can't! and neither can these "scientists" that you follow.
Lily, your ignorance of recent history is astounding! just thirty years ago the EXACT OPPOSITE PHENOMENON WAS HAPPENING!
From Newsweek:
According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.
SUDDEEN LARGE INCREASES OF SNOW COVER!
1.3% LESS SUNSHINE
Heres some more alarmist crap from that era.
“The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.” Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.
I'M NOT IGNORING THE TIMELINE, YOU ARE! 30 YEARS AGO THE EARTH WAS COOLING AND THE SAME ORGANIZATIONS WERE TELLING US DISASTER WAS GOING TO FOLLOW! SOME PREDICTED WIDESPREAD FAMINE IN ONLY 10 YEARS!
Here's some more:
To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 – years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.
SOUNDS VERY FAMILIAR TO ME! HAVE FUN WITH THAT SHEEPLE!
The problem I'm having with your position is that apparently there is no point at which it would make sense to actually do anything about global warming, or at least not until every scientist in the world supported it.
Thats not the case at all. In fact that's the reason why i linked this article.
I think this guy makes sense when he says right now it's not worth it. To me it's all about the cost vs the benefit. Right now the cost of kyoto is too high vs the negligable benefit. Ten or 20 years from now we may have new technology that can make a difference but it won't be anything that the U.N. does. It will be private industry that sees the profit motive in it.
My other problem is that the greenies want to do something but they don't want to do anything that makes sense, like nuclear power which is cleaner and more efficient. We can't kill the economy for an unproven theory.
Some of the new technologies exist now and should be strongly encouraged by the government. Hopefully President Gore will make that happen!
Post a Comment