There simply isn't total agreement with Al Gore (who let us remember is NOT a scientist) and actual scientists about global warming being a man-made problem.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport
The Z Platform
1 day ago
37 comments:
The whole "consensus" claim is absolutely false. Global warming is based on ideology, not science.
If you're trying to comment on the views of "actual scientists" - as opposed to politicians' views, would it not make sense to cite a scientific instead of political source, no?
Seems to me you're chasing your own tail when you point out Gore is a politician not a scientist, then turn around and support your case by referencing a political document.
But whatever, never mind me. If it makes you feel better, I'm all for you feeling better.
It was from a Senate Report about 400 scientists who are coming out to say that the global warming alarmists are nuts, how is this not a commentary on scientific thought?
What would make me feel better is for you to address the content and not the source.
Did you hear about that controversial ad saying the sun is not bad for you, it helps your body produce the essential Vitamin D? Used to be your mother would want you to go out in the sun but now the sun is evil so you not only have to question global warming but all these other pieties are coming along as well. It's all about nonstop worrying and after a while how much can you worry?
Beth, you heard the latest from Antarctica?
Certainly you're not allowing me such an open-ended opportunity to thoroughly embarass you by addressing the science of these scientists, are you?
Sure, I start over on my blog ... tell me when to stop. I'll start with criticizing Georgia D. Brown, "Dr." Hans HJ Labohm, and Paavo Siitam.
Sure, you have fun with that, Erik.
The best sentence I found on that link had to be this one---"Rancourt added, 'Global warming is strictly an imaginary problem of the First World middle class.'"
Second place goes to this one---"As ‘the ice melts' and ‘sea level rises,' the Apocalypse looms ever nearer! Without realizing it, or perhaps without wishing to, the average citizen in bamboozled, lobotomized, lulled into mindless acceptance."
Is that what happened Erik? The stress you are putting yourself under by believing this crap will do you much more harm than "global warming" will.
Adding you to my blog list Beth.
The best sentence I found on that link had to be this one---"Rancourt added, 'Global warming is strictly an imaginary problem of the First World middle class.'"
Second place goes to this one---"As ‘the ice melts' and ‘sea level rises,' the Apocalypse looms ever nearer! Without realizing it, or perhaps without wishing to, the average citizen in bamboozled, lobotomized, lulled into mindless acceptance."
Is that what happened Erik? The stress you are putting yourself under by believing this crap will do you much more harm than "global warming" will.
Adding you to my blog list Beth.
Similarly, my stress must be a direct result of assessing the massive tax increase all of this hysteria brings forth.
;-)
Info on Denis Rancourt:
Letter of complaint against him signed by 52 fellow professors of Science at the U of Ottowa.
Greivance filed by Dr. Rancourt demanding 10,000,000 for emotional suffering.
Letter of concern over Dr. Rancourt's mental health from the Dean of Science.
In his own words, putting the "imaginary problem of the First World middle class" quote in context:
"I argue that by far the most destructive force on the planet is power-driven financiers and profit-driven corporations and their cartels backed by military might; and that the global warming myth is a red herring that contributes to hiding this truth.
"... Somewhere First World middleclassers will need to abandon the lies that we live in democracies, that the corporate profit motive guarantees environmental protection, that servicing manufactured debt advances society, that corporate agri-business is the best way to feed people, that making a mess everywhere to serve share holders is the best way to generate well being, and that exploiting others is a good way to help them, not to mention that war is an acceptable method to bring justice and freedom to enslaved populations.
"... The best we can do for the environment and for the planet is to learn not to let undemocratic power structures run our lives. The best we can do is to reject exploitation and domination and to embrace cooperation and solidarity.
"There are real environmental problems on the planet. Agriculture, especially large-scale corporate chemical fertilizer and pesticide-based agriculture, is the main human force that has transformed the planet. Resource extraction and use is a close second, including energy, minerals, building materials, etc. Toxic substance pollution vies for an important place, with everything from persistent organic pollutants, to heavy metals, to radioactive substances, to pharmaceutical metabolites, all the way to industrially prepared food products. The industrial food-animal cycle is another wonderful experiment in attempted mass suicide, not to mention its grotesque inanimality.
"... Global warming is strictly an imaginary problem of the First World middleclass. Nobody else cares about global warming. Exploited factory workers in the Third World don’t care about global warming. Depleted uranium genetically mutilated children in Iraq don’t care about global warming. Devastated aboriginal populations the world over also can’t relate to global warming, except maybe as representing the only solidarity that we might volunteer."
Rancourt is a nut.
Regarding the "As ‘the ice melts' and ‘sea level rises,' the Apocalypse looms ever nearer" quote by "Dr. Marcel Leroux, former professor at University of Jean Moulin":
The University of Jean Moulin does not even have a science department. It has a School of Law, School of Business, School of Foreign Languages, School of Literature, and School of Philosophy.
If "Dr. Marcel Leroux" is indeed a real person formerly employed my said institution, he would have taught general science courses to business and law students.
Next "leading scientist", please. I'm debunking them in threes on my blog, so I need one more.
Thanks!
Glad to see you have something fun to do this Friday night, Erik.
I'm not sure what you mean for me to take away from that comment.
Is it an admission that you were incredibly gullible to believe there are over 400 credible scientists who challenge the consensus view on climate change?
400divided by 3=133 1/3 debunking sessions
Have fun Erik!
At least we keep you busy enough so you bother other people less. Do you have a life beyond this endeavor?
It takes about 15 minutes for me to debunk a name on the list. A lot of work has already been done by others.
Will you please select the next name for me to show they're something between an oil/gas/coal industry shill and middle school science teacher?
Thanks.
Well Erik, here is what you can take away from my comment:
1.) Unless you plan on debunking all 400 scientists, then your efforts thus far are meaningless.
2.) Even a nutcase scientist has more credibility than Al Gore, who I will mention again is not a scientist.
3.) A middle school science teacher has more credibility than Al Gore on matters of science.
4.) I used to think you were a reasonable person, but this whole global warming/climate change crap has opened my eyes to the truth about you.
Now I will say that I could be wrong on this issue, but as of now I really don't think so.
1. I've already shown you that 8 of the 400 are not research scientists, but
* a college dropout that studied economics
* a computer consultant
* a professor at an institution offering GEDs and two year technical certificates
* a schoolteacher
* a nut who tries to scientifically explain biblical miracles
* a loon who is being investigated by his own university
* a professor at a university that doesn't even have a science department
... and in one case an actual scientist in a climate related discipline, but one who accepts the consensus view on global warming.
The thought you should have is "if there are indeed several hundred scientists who question global warming, why does this document claim non-scientists are scientists in making that argument?"
2 & 3. This is the wrong comparison to make. The opinions of the 400 middle school teachers, economists and lobbyists must be weighed against the consensus view of tens of thousands of actual research scientists.
4. You're not going to win this argument by finding a significant number of actual scientists to back you up!
I've chosen several people on the list to criticize --- please, choose tghe next few for me!
So you are telling me that all 400 scientists that actually came forward to the Senate were all crackpots? (This does not include the scientists who have not officially come forward to disagree with the global warming alarmists).
Goodness, Beth, it's a document put together using Google by Marc Morano of Swiftboat fame now working as an aide to Sen. James Inhofe.
What did you think the document was? Notes from Senate hearings?
Erik: If I wanted to know the average temperature of the entire planet at any particular instant in time, how would you suggest this be done so that every spot on earth is figured in at the same time? Then, wouldn't one have to take the measurements from ground level all the way up to----where? Just the impossibility of obtaining a "true average" instantly, flaws every piece of literature about global warming. IT IS AN INEXACT SCIENCE!!! And it also the end of my participation on the subject.
Joe
And yes, I'm telling you that the names on the list all fall into one ore more of these categories:
* PR representatives and lobbyists
* Economists and TV weathermen
* Retired and senile or otherwise batty scientists
* Non-scientists who have a website and worthless opinion
* Crackpot scientists
* Scientists who agree with the consensus view who's words are presented out of context
Don't let the door hit you where the Good Lord split you, Joe.
Well see now Erik you could have saved yourself a lot of time by just saying that you personally do not believe not even one of the scientists at the link I provided, and that you prefer to worship at the altar of Al Gore, the real expert on global warming. I mean you are just so right to think Al Gore knows so much more than anyone else, after all he did invent the Internet, he is a genius, isn't he? And because he is so smart, he is allowed to buy carbon credits and use as much as energy as he wants, he totally deserves it, doesn't he? I mean, what would we have done without him??
Oh, I see it's the hour we're suppose to be all dark for Earth Hour, I am going to go turn on every light in my house in protest.
Joe - good thoughts, I do hope you return for other topics of conversation.
I'm actually a global warming "skeptic," as they say, but I was pretty disappointed after reading your responses to Erik because they were mostly personal attacks. Also, I have a question: what kind of sick satisfaction do you get from criticizing Al Gore? He is a politician, not a scientist. You act as if you insult Al Gore enough, all of the global warming activists will simply be blown away.
Let's debate some science instead.
Hello, Anonymous, thanks for your comments. I know you are joining in late in the debate here, I have several other postings below this one where Erik has resorted to comments about me believing the earth is flat, so if he can dish that crap out he can take a little sarcasm by yours truly. In addition, you and everyone else hasn't been privvy to e-mails in the past that Erik and I have had regarding Al Gore, so that is where I came up with the worshipping at the Al Gore altar thought came from.
Anyway, I do agree that Al Gore is not a scientist, which was kinda my point.
Now there are many different scientific views on whether there is a problem with our climate, whether humans have caused any problems, and if they have is there anything we can do to reverse it, or stop it in the future, right? I don't think we need to panic, as the alarmists are wanting us to do, in order to control us. I say let's continue to monitor things, let nature take it's course in self-correctng things, invest in cleaner sources of energy such as nuclear, and in new alternative sources, and stop the madness of all the global/climate change fad.
Scientifically speaking Anonymous, Erik has given me a link where a scientist said that the proposals made by some to global warming is not going to make enough of a difference, and will hurt the poor attempting to do so. This scientist also mentioned that things like polluted water is more of a dire problem to our well-being than climate changes. (See Thanks Erik for the Link)
I'll still drop by Beth. It's just that arguing on a blog won't change minds that are already firmly made up. I did actually want an answer to my last comment though.
Fact is, Beth, you've referenced a document citing over 400 so-called "predominant scientists" who I've shown to be largely made up of high school teachers, TV weathermen, senile retirees and random nobodies with a web site.
Among real scientists in applicable fields, there is an overwhelming consensus that our dramatic increase in producing methane and CO2 will and is causing effects that wil;l negatively impact human life on earthy. Such as Bangladesh and parts of coastal China going under seal level and possibly Manhattan going below sea level.
Yes, I'm attacting the personalities of the 400 "prominent scientists" precicely because they are for the most part NOT "prominent scientists", but rather grade school teachers, lobbyists and PR agents.
You keep ignoring the very link you sent where the scientists say there are bigger environmental issues and the protocols suggested for climate changes would not make enough difference but would hurt the poor. Are you trying to say that those scientists, whom you directed me to as experts, are crackpots now?
No, they're not crackpots, they agree with the consensus view.
That they editorialize doesn't change the fact they acknowledge human activity contributes to this trend we're in.
So are you saying that since they are scientists and not economists then you discount their editorialing of the cost/benefits to lots of regulations regarding global warming?
As of a few weeks ago, you were arguing that "real" scientists in applicable fields denied that human activity has contributed to global warming.
Now, gladly you seem to have abandoned that ridiculous thought and are felling back on "global warming might be good ion ways."
Sure, higher C02 concentrations in the atmosphere will certainly result in higher crop yields per acre, but also may melt glacial/arctic ice so as to make hundreds of millions or billions of people's homes below sea level.
I mean, we really should try to postpone a necessary migration from Earth to space as long as we can.
Post a Comment