Climate Change NOT Debunked

[GregC]

He'd be riding a bicycle to speaking engagements if he REALLY believed.

Yeah, that sounds really feasible for a former vice president of the U.S. who undoubtedly has to have 24/7 Secret Service protection. Same goes for flying commercial.

 

[peetey]

49 out of 50 states, Hawaii being the other, received snow this winter! Texas and Florida included!

 

[RWP]

49 out of 50 states, Hawaii being the other, received snow this winter! Texas and Florida included!

That us why the name was changed from global warming to climate change. Makes perfect sense.

 

[FL Knifemaker]

To me this issue is so politically charged it is impossible to discuss it on TB.

I agree. That and it requires a certain level of gullibility to make it work It should be rolled up into a neat marketing packing and sold through Amway.

 

[Deluge Of Sound]

Yeah, the last 80 years or so.

Well done, sir.

Well done, indeed.

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

 

[hbarcat]

But if you know for a fact that Al Gore is only doing what he's doing for self-serving reasons, doesn't believe in what he's promoting and is, like a fallen preacher, only trying to "get his", I suppose I stand corrected.

While no one can know for sure what's going on in someone else's head, I would bet big money that Al Gore believes to the core of his being that man made global warming is the greatest crisis the Earth has ever faced - just as he says in his speeches - even though he wastes more fossil fuel than 1000 average Americans. I also believe that most of the televangelist types who live lives of sin and greed also believe to the core of their being that they are great people and will be at the head of the line when it's time to get their wings in heaven.

Just like the TV preachers who BS themselves into thinking that their sins are okay because they admit their sins and ask for divine forgiveness everyday, Al Gore has BS'ed himself into thinking that he is scientifically knowledgeable because he is an activist for a scientifically based cause. The genuine climate scientists who are fudging and exaggerating the numbers are BS'ing themselves into thinking that it won't invalidate the science because they're saving the planet. The end justifies the means.

 

[tZer]

While no one can know for sure what's going on in someone else's head, I would bet big money that Al Gore believes to the core of his being that man made global warming is the greatest crisis the Earth has ever faced - just as he says in his speeches - even though he wastes more fossil fuel than 1000 average Americans. I also believe that most of the televangelist types who live lives of sin and greed also believe to the core of their being that they are great people and will be at the head of the line when it's time to get their wings in heaven.

Just like the TV preachers who BS themselves into thinking that their sins are okay because they admit their sins and ask for divine forgiveness everyday, Al Gore has BS'ed himself into thinking that he is scientifically knowledgeable because he is an activist for a scientifically based cause. The genuine climate scientists who are fudging and exaggerating the numbers are BS'ing themselves into thinking that it won't invalidate the science because they're saving the planet. The end justifies the means.

Cannot argue one iota.

That point conceded; Do Al's or Rev. Fondledoodle's activities change the idea that the science on climate change has not (yet) been debunked? Because Al Gore goes about promoting his take on climate change in a way that seems antithetical to his stated cause, does that mean the topic he's talking about has been rendered moot?

If that's the case then stop listening to your doctor. He's certainly advising you to change things in your life to improve your health - advice he may or may not be following himself - like not exercising or eating a balanced diet. He may be fat, eat horribly and ultimately be quite unhealthy. Just because he's not doing those things doesn't mean doing those things wouldn't result in your health improving, does it? If the speaker of a subject must also be the exemplar of the topic at hand we might as well render all contentious discussions null and void. While there are surely a few people who both walk the walk and talk the talk out there, both walking and talking aren't mandatory for the substance of what they're saying to be valid.

I get that people don't like Al Gore or other publicity seeking, self aggrandizing public figures whose activities seem counter to their rhetoric - but I don't see how that actually adds up to bunking or debunking climate change science.

 

[sloasdaylight]

Cannot argue one iota.

That point conceded; Do Al's or Rev. Fondledoodle's activities change the idea that the science on climate change has not (yet) been debunked? Because Al Gore goes about promoting his take on climate change in a way that seems antithetical to his stated cause, does that mean the topic he's talking about has been rendered moot?

If that's the case then stop listening to your doctor. He's certainly advising you to change things in your life to improve your health - advice he may or may not be following himself - like not exercising or eating a balanced diet. He may be fat, eat horribly and ultimately be quite unhealthy. Just because he's not doing those things doesn't mean doing those things wouldn't result in your health improving, does it? If the speaker of a subject must also be the exemplar of the topic at hand we might as well render all contentious discussions null and void. While there are surely a few people who both walk the walk and talk the talk out there, both walking and talking aren't mandatory for the substance of what they're saying to be valid.

I get that people don't like Al Gore or other publicity seeking, self aggrandizing public figures whose activities seem counter to their rhetoric - but I don't see how that actually adds up to bunking or debunking climate change science.

It doesn't, and wasn't presented as such. Sleepytime introduced it as an example of why we should be skeptical of what these people are saying, and he used Al Gore as an example. The whole "Earth has a fever" thing, his amazingly hypocritical lifestyle, the "IT'S A CRISIS WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE AND DROWN CAUSE THE OCEANS ARE GONNA COVER FLORIDA BY 2010!!" method of attempting to get his message across has created real and in my opinion justified skepticism.

The stuff that is now coming forward, like contradictory evidence, and the admission of the IPCC itself that in some of it's presentations to the UN and other World organizations that it used fabricated, scientifically unsubstantiated data and claims to promote an agenda, as well as Phil Jones' admission (I still don't believe this guy 100%) that there has been no statistically significant global warming in the last 15 years, along with recent data about the arctic sea ice now back to 2001 levels, and other such things, is what's beginning to debunk this whole global warming sham.

 

[sleepytime]

Cannot argue one iota.

That point conceded; Do Al's or Rev. Fondledoodle's activities change the idea that the science on climate change has not (yet) been debunked? Because Al Gore goes about promoting his take on climate change in a way that seems antithetical to his stated cause, does that mean the topic he's talking about has been rendered moot?

If that's the case then stop listening to your doctor. He's certainly advising you to change things in your life to improve your health - advice he may or may not be following himself - like not exercising or eating a balanced diet. He may be fat, eat horribly and ultimately be quite unhealthy. Just because he's not doing those things doesn't mean doing those things wouldn't result in your health improving, does it? If the speaker of a subject must also be the exemplar of the topic at hand we might as well render all contentious discussions null and void. While there are surely a few people who both walk the walk and talk the talk out there, both walking and talking aren't mandatory for the substance of what they're saying to be valid.

I get that people don't like Al Gore or other publicity seeking, self aggrandizing public figures whose activities seem counter to their rhetoric - but I don't see how that actually adds up to bunking or debunking climate change science.

That's a pretty weak analogy, allow me to spice it up a bit. In addition to being fat and eating unhealthily, the good doctor paints pictures of your poor health with ridiculous exaggerations, and accuses you of being a burden to others. He demands that you follow a rigid health regimen, subject to fines and imprisonment. His new scheme costs you dearly and benefits him immensely. Your life would be closely monitored, your privacy invaded to whatever extent he feels necessary, and reaches into every facet of your life. It is widely condemned by other doctors as not only being unnecessary, but having no benefit whatsoever. Once in place, it is irrevocable.

Your doctor and his associates stand to benefit in both wealth and influence by the requirements of your new "health regimen" at every step along the way. They have invested in manufacturing facilities, testing facilities, monitoring systems, research facilities. They hold lucrative positions of power and influence, and are able to charge you at will to fund their activities.

At what point do you start to smell a rat?

 

[tZer]

It doesn't, and wasn't presented as such. Sleepytime introduced it as an example of why we should be skeptical of what these people are saying, and he used Al Gore as an example. The whole "Earth has a fever" thing, his amazingly hypocritical lifestyle, the "IT'S A CRISIS WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE AND DROWN CAUSE THE OCEANS ARE GONNA COVER FLORIDA BY 2010!!" method of attempting to get his message across has created real and in my opinion justified skepticism.

The stuff that is now coming forward, like contradictory evidence, and the admission of the IPCC itself that in some of it's presentations to the UN and other World organizations that it used fabricated, scientifically unsubstantiated data and claims to promote an agenda, as well as Phil Jones' admission (I still don't believe this guy 100%) that there has been no statistically significant global warming in the last 15 years, along with recent data about the arctic sea ice now back to 2001 levels, and other such things, is what's beginning to debunk this whole global warming sham.

I believe everyone should BY DEFAULT be skeptical.

My skeptical nature prompted me to wonder if those who are choosing to use obvious, hot-button and polarizing people and subsequent hyperbole and vitriol about them (not the topic), in their comments are really interested in this topic or just venting their spleen about "the other side" and using this topic as a convenient cover.

Climate science is mumble, muffle, garble, does anyone really think Al Gore gives a flying **** about the planet, or is he concerned primarily about Al Gore and his allies? Is it possible that there is nothing at the root of it but greed, lust for power, and callous disregard for any who get hurt in the process?... Climate science, muffle, garble, mumble...

As for the highlights in my tongue-in-cheek example; greed, lust, power and lack of concern for people in general in the pursuit of personal/crony agendas is par for the course in American (and other) politics and while what was said about Al Gore may or may not be true, but saying that as if he's cornered the market on such behavior is not healthy skepticism - it's a strawman.

Yeah - I'm sold. Al Gore's a punk = the science supporting man's negative impact on climate change is bunk.

Does anyone really believe those who believe the climate change warnings are the only ones engaging in unsubstantial rhetorical BS, hypocrisy and cronyism? No? Good. Because that's one thing we can say with almost 100% certainty.

Now - on with whether the weather is whacked because of man or just because.

 

[tZer]

That's a pretty weak analogy, allow me to spice it up a bit. In addition to being fat and eating unhealthily, the good doctor paints pictures of your poor health with ridiculous exaggerations, and accuses you of being a burden to others. He demands that you follow a rigid health regimen, subject to fines and imprisonment. His new scheme costs you dearly and benefits him immensely. Your life would be closely monitored, your privacy invaded to whatever extent he feels necessary, and reaches into every facet of your life. It is widely condemned by other doctors as not only being unnecessary, but having no benefit whatsoever. Once in place, it is irrevocable.

Your doctor and his associates stand to benefit in both wealth and influence by the requirements of your new "health regimen" at every step along the way. They have invested in manufacturing facilities, testing facilities, monitoring systems, research facilities. They hold lucrative positions of power and influence, and are able to charge you at will to fund their activities.

At what point do you start to smell a rat?

Very good points and very well stated.

Is there an equal but opposite example or is the other side of that debate pristine?

That picture you paint is indeed unattractive and one I would not want to see happen.

But the very same things - different details, but equally reprehensible and self-serving things can be said about those whose ability to continue to profit at the expense of possibly the climate, people's health and well being and who have a vested interest in keeping things - as bad as they may be for many - as is.

Why? Because they're saints and care about the world and it's people or is it because they don't want to see their bottom line dented no matter what the reason?

 

[sleepytime]

Very good points and very well stated.

Is there an equal but opposite example or is the other side of that debate pristine?

That picture you paint is indeed unattractive and one I would not want to see happen.

But the very same things - different details, but equally reprehensible and self-serving things can be said about those whose ability to continue to profit at the expense of possibly the climate, people's health and well being and who have a vested interest in keeping things - as bad as they may be for many - as is.

Why? Because they're saints and care about the world and it's people or is it because they don't want to see their bottom line dented no matter what the reason?

What do you mean "the" other side. Someone isn't X, so they must be Y? Are you suggesting anyone who opposes Climate Change Inc. must be a toady for corporate bottom liners?

Edit to add: Sometimes I'll be saying something like "A and his buddies B and C are going to be the ruin of us all." Frequently someone will chime in with "Oh yeah? X, Y and Z are like Hitler!" You should see their faces when I say "Okay, let's round them all up and put them in the klink. Then we can go drink beer." They assume I'm on "the" other side. And nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[billhilly66]

The zero sum deal helps them feel like their arguments have more merit than they would standing on their own. It is a logical fallacy that should embarrass any philosophy 101 student but it makes some people feel better about their position if they can believe that everyone who disagrees is evil, stupid, or associated with a group or individual that is.

 

[sleepytime]

I believe everyone should BY DEFAULT be skeptical.

My skeptical nature prompted me to wonder if those who are choosing to use obvious, hot-button and polarizing people and subsequent hyperbole and vitriol about them (not the topic), in their comments are really interested in this topic or just venting their spleen about "the other side" and using this topic as a convenient cover.

Climate science is mumble, muffle, garble, does anyone really think Al Gore gives a flying **** about the planet, or is he concerned primarily about Al Gore and his allies? Is it possible that there is nothing at the root of it but greed, lust for power, and callous disregard for any who get hurt in the process?... Climate science, muffle, garble, mumble...

As for the highlights in my tongue-in-cheek example; greed, lust, power and lack of concern for people in general in the pursuit of personal/crony agendas is par for the course in American (and other) politics and while what was said about Al Gore may or may not be true, but saying that as if he's cornered the market on such behavior is not healthy skepticism - it's a strawman.

Yeah - I'm sold. Al Gore's a punk = the science supporting man's negative impact on climate change is bunk.

Does anyone really believe those who believe the climate change warnings are the only ones engaging in unsubstantial rhetorical BS, hypocrisy and cronyism? No? Good. Because that's one thing we can say with almost 100% certainty.

Now - on with whether the weather is whacked because of man or just because.

If you are looking to buy a Rolex, is examining the man pitching the sale important? If I say "tZer, don't buy from that guy in the alley, he's a liar and a thief.", is that a strawman argument?

I happen to think examining the people and the methods they use is relevant. One-sided media coverage, brainwashing schoolkids, fudging figures, meddling with funding...why can't they just present the issue on its own merits?

Instead we get "Wow, it's hot today. Let's run the Global Warming piece.", and little, if any, dissenting opinion. After 40 years of seeing the same crowd using the same tactics, and seeing the same sorry results, I've had it. And I am not alone.

 

[tZer]

What do you mean "the" other side. Someone isn't X, so they must be Y? Are you suggesting anyone who opposes Climate Change Inc. must be a toady for corporate bottom liners?

No - and that's precisely why I didn't make comments that implied anyone's intent was as such - like you didn't accuse Al Gore of blatant profiteering and cronyism - in so many words...

But I do concede. You made your points - and made them well.

 

[sloasdaylight]

If you are looking to buy a Rolex, is examining the man pitching the sale important? If I say "tZer, don't buy from that guy in the alley, he's a liar and a thief.", is that a strawman argument?

I happen to think examining the people and the methods they use is relevant. One-sided media coverage, brainwashing schoolkids, fudging figures, meddling with funding...why can't they just present the issue on its own merits?

Instead we get "Wow, it's hot today. Let's run the Global Warming piece.", and little, if any, dissenting opinion. After 40 years of seeing the same crowd using the same tactics, and seeing the same sorry results, I've had it. And I am not alone.

I was going to type something, but this said what I was going to say much better.

 

[tZer]

If you are looking to buy a Rolex, is examining the man pitching the sale important? If I say "tZer, don't buy from that guy in the alley, he's a liar and a thief.", is that a strawman argument?

I happen to think examining the people and the methods they use is relevant. One-sided media coverage, brainwashing schoolkids, fudging figures, meddling with funding...why can't they just present the issue on its own merits?

Instead we get "Wow, it's hot today. Let's run the Global Warming piece.", and little, if any, dissenting opinion. After 40 years of seeing the same crowd using the same tactics, and seeing the same sorry results, I've had it. And I am not alone.

I get it - but Al Gore is not the only person in the discussion. I too believe you need to consider the source when evaluating validity.

Again - I completely understand your point and I think you've made a good one. But it doesn't deal with the validity of climate change science - only the believability of an outspoken proponent of it.

To extend your 'that guy in the alley' analogy, it could still be a Rolex in spite of the bad salesman. Isn't it up to me to know the difference?

 

[sleepytime]

I was going to type something, but this said what I was going to say much better.

Thanks. I had meant to add that Algore is not a neutral messenger, he is not even a mere salesman. He is more like a predator.

 

[sleepytime]

I get it - but Al Gore is not the only person in the discussion. I too believe you need to consider the source when evaluating validity.

Again - I completely understand your point and I think you've made a good one. But it doesn't deal with the validity of climate change science - only the believability of an outspoken proponent of it.

To extend your 'that guy in the alley' analogy, it could still be a Rolex in spite of the bad salesman. Isn't it up to me to know the difference?

Yes, it sure is. I wish the debate was not so clouded with special interest, posturing and maneuvering. If I were convinced the threat is real, I would be the most vocal proponent.

 

[RWP]

That's a pretty weak analogy, allow me to spice it up a bit. In addition to being fat and eating unhealthily, the good doctor paints pictures of your poor health with ridiculous exaggerations, and accuses you of being a burden to others. He demands that you follow a rigid health regimen, subject to fines and imprisonment. His new scheme costs you dearly and benefits him immensely. Your life would be closely monitored, your privacy invaded to whatever extent he feels necessary, and reaches into every facet of your life. It is widely condemned by other doctors as not only being unnecessary, but having no benefit whatsoever. Once in place, it is irrevocable.

Your doctor and his associates stand to benefit in both wealth and influence by the requirements of your new "health regimen" at every step along the way. They have invested in manufacturing facilities, testing facilities, monitoring systems, research facilities. They hold lucrative positions of power and influence, and are able to charge you at will to fund their activities.

At what point do you start to smell a rat?

This is a GREAT analogy, why can't everyone understand this. Why are so many duped?