|
Korean Job Discussion Forums "The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Axiom
Joined: 18 Jan 2008 Location: Brisbane, Australia
|
Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 11:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Triban wrote: |
| Why are people so f*cking STUPID? Global warming is just an idiotic ploy, and we are taking the bait, yet again, just like with the previous bailouts, Iraq War, etc. |
Triban, could not agree with you more on the idiotic ploy part.
But provide proof. The believers need to be educated on this issue. They all fell for that BS artist Gore. The worm is turning on this issue, people are starting to wake up.
Find the information and post it. Calling people f'en stupid won't win any friends.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Axiom
Joined: 18 Jan 2008 Location: Brisbane, Australia
|
Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 12:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
Oh excellent argument.
Ok, so the science is settled, though we don't know which science is settled (and we assume the thousands of scientists who disagree are on Big Oil's payroll) but we're sure 1) it's hysterically bad 2) will demand intervention into "every aspect of our life" (according to Tim Flannery) and 3) anybody who disagrees is i) doing so out of ideological spite or ii) probably stupid. |
Tim Flannery, what an embarrassment to OZ, what a clown.
Ha, "global dimming", someone turn the light on for Tim.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23724412-2,00.html
SCIENTIST Tim Flannery has proposed a radical solution to climate change which may change the colour of the sky.
But he says it may be necessary, as the "last barrier to climate collapse."
Professor Flannery says climate change is happening so quickly that mankind may need to pump sulphur into the atmosphere to survive.
Australia's best-known expert on global warming has updated his climate forecast for the world - and it's much worse than he thought just three years ago.
He has called for a radical suite of emergency measures to be put in place.
The gas sulphur could be inserted into the earth's stratosphere to keep out the sun's rays and slow global warming, a process called global dimming.
"It would change the colour of the sky," Prof Flannery told AAP.
"It's the last resort that we have, it's the last barrier to a climate collapse.
"We need to be ready to start doing it in perhaps five years time if we fail to achieve what we're trying to achieve." |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 2:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Axiom wrote: |
| Why is he so afraid of debate on this subject. |
He's not afraid of debate on the subject. Rather, he pretty clearly understands that many of the people who claim to want debate really just have the goal of muddying the intellectual waters as much as possible in hopes of confusing the issue, which will result in a default victory for their "do nothing" approach.
Outside of a few scientists, no serious debate is actually occuring. The politicians, businessmen, and members of the general public who deny climate change do so for the most part because the things required to combat it conflict with their interests or ideology, not because of any data. No amount of data would cause most of them to change their minds.
To be certain whether or not anthropogenic climate change is occuring will take decades or longer. Gambling with the existence of our species by waiting until we're certain to start taking appropriate countermeasures is nothing short of selfish, short-sighted stupidity. Let's stop pretending an actual debate is taking place among the general public, in business circles, or in political circles. Just as with health care reform, the people who are against it are against it for reasons of personal interest or unrealist ideology, not because of any facts or data. |
Oh, and you don't have an agenda? Everything you write could just as easily be applied right back at you. Are you actually pretending that you know all the data yourself?
There is soooo much to lose by going along with government plans to "stop" climate change. Nobody is saying we wouldn't be better off finding alternative energy sources - the issue is increased government control over our lives and carbon taxes, period. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Safron

Joined: 05 Feb 2007 Location: portland, or
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Axiom
Joined: 18 Jan 2008 Location: Brisbane, Australia
|
Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 6:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://townhall.com/columnists/MichaelBarone/2007/03/26/gores_faith_is_bad_science?page=full&comments=true
Al Gore likes to present himself as a tribune of science, warning the world of imminent danger. But he is more like an Old Testament prophet, calling on us to bewail our wrongful conduct and to go and sin no more.
He starts off with the science. The world's climate, he reports, is getting warmer. This accurate report is, however, not set in historic context. World climate has grown warmer and cooler at various times in history. Climate change is not some unique historic event. It is the way the world works.
Not this time, Gore says. What's different is that climate change is being driven by human activity -- to wit, increasing carbon dioxide emissions. Which means, he says, that we have to sharply reduce those emissions. But what the scientists tell us is that some proportion of climate change is caused by human activity and some proportion by natural causes -- and that they can only estimate what those proportions are. The estimates they have produced have varied sharply. The climate change models that have been developed don't account for events of the recent past, much less predict with precision events in the future.
To which the prophet replies, with religious intensity, that all debate should be over. Those scientists with inconvenient views should be defunded and silenced. We should replace scientific inquiry with faith. We should have faith that climate change -- "global warming" -- is caused primarily by human activity. And we should have faith that the effects will be catastrophic, with rising oceans flooding great cities and pleasant plains and forests broiled by a searing sun.
Even The New York Times bridles at this. After Gore won the Academy Award for his film on climate change, the Times printed an article in which respected scientists -- not Republicans, not on oil company payrolls -- charged that Gore has vastly exaggerated the likelihood of catastrophic effects.
When you read the fine print of even the scientific reports that Gore likes to cite, you find the same thing. Gore foresees a 20-foot rise in sea level -- 240 inches. The IPCC panel report foresees a maximum of 23 inches. Gore says that "our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this." Geologist Don Easterbrook says there have been shifts up to "20 times greater than the warming in the past century."
Science says that we should learn more about possible bad effects of climate change and calculate rationally how we can mitigate them. As the economic journalist Robert Samuelson points out, there is little that we can feasibly do in the short term to reduce carbon emissions, though over the long term we may be able to develop substitutes for carbon fuels.
As the environmentalist Bjorn Lomberg points out, the Kyoto Treaty that Gore helped to write (but which the Clinton administration never asked the Senate to ratify) would produce very little reduction in climate change at very high cost.
But religious prophets are not concerned about costs. Gore calls for an immediate cessation of new carbon-burning facilities. In other words, stop economic growth. But stopping economic growth in the developing world means consigning millions to miserable poverty. And we know what stopping economic growth in the developed world can mean.
Read the history of the 1930s: fascism, communism, world war. There are worse things than a rise of 1 or 2 degrees Centigrade.
The natural human yearning for spirituality has produced in many people educated in secular-minded universities and enveloped in an atmosphere of contempt for traditional religion a faith that we vulgar human beings have a sacred obligation not to inflict damage on Mother Earth. But science tells us that the Earth and its climate have been constantly changing.
Gore and his followers seem to assume that the ideal climate was the one they got used to when they were growing up. When temperatures dropped in the 1970s, there were warnings of an impending ice age. When they rose in the 1990s, there were predictions of disastrous global warming. This is just another example of the solipsism of the baby boom generation, the pampered and much-praised age cohort that believes the world revolves around them and that all past history has become irrelevant.
We're told in effect that the climate of the late 1950s and early 1960s was, of all those that have ever existed, the best of all possible climates. Not by science. But as a matter of faith.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Easterbrook
Don J. Easterbrook is a geology professor emeritus at Western Washington University. Easterbrook has published 150 journal articles. He has written eight books including Surface Processes and Landforms.
Easterbrook is a specialist in ice cores and global climate changes. From that perspective, he is skeptical of global warming. He has criticized Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth and IPCC temperature projections. He has appeared on the Headline News program Glenn Beck and in the New York Times as a global warming skeptic.
Another one of the few
Last edited by Axiom on Tue Nov 10, 2009 2:56 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 6:22 am Post subject: Re: Scientific Data |
|
|
Yeah right... the sun (that gigantic nuclear inferno that radiates hundreds of billions of times more energy in a single second than humanity has ever produced) couldn't possibly be a factor... Far better to just de-industrialize the world and give our money to the UN and Al Gore. To do otherwise is just too risky. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 10:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Axiom wrote: |
| Why is he so afraid of debate on this subject. |
He's not afraid of debate on the subject. Rather, he pretty clearly understands that many of the people who claim to want debate really just have the goal of muddying the intellectual waters as much as possible in hopes of confusing the issue, which will result in a default victory for their "do nothing" approach.
Outside of a few scientists, no serious debate is actually occuring. The politicians, businessmen, and members of the general public who deny climate change do so for the most part because the things required to combat it conflict with their interests or ideology, not because of any data. No amount of data would cause most of them to change their minds.
To be certain whether or not anthropogenic climate change is occuring will take decades or longer. Gambling with the existence of our species by waiting until we're certain to start taking appropriate countermeasures is nothing short of selfish, short-sighted stupidity. Let's stop pretending an actual debate is taking place among the general public, in business circles, or in political circles. Just as with health care reform, the people who are against it are against it for reasons of personal interest or unrealist ideology, not because of any facts or data. |
| | | |