|
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 |
Yaya
Joined: 25 Feb 2003
Location: Seoul
|
 Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 5:57 pm Post subject: Global warming stopped a decade ago |
 |
|
Take that, you global warming false prophets.
"...there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 6:00 pm Post subject: Re: Global warming stopped a decade ago |
|
|
| Yaya wrote: |
Take that, you global warming false prophets.
"...there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html |
Global warming is not just warming. It's actually not a very good term, but it was coined when people thought the world was just warming up. It's more of a climate change. Maybe we could call it the War on Weather or something  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yaya
Joined: 25 Feb 2003
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Global cooling?
Global warming activists may need to revise their arguments soon. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) recently reported that December of 2007, and January and February of 2008 recorded the coolest temperatures around the world in seven years.
http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art13318.asp |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Justin Hale
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Location: the Straight Talk Express
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 6:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Overwhelming international consensus of scientists vs hagwon cowboy on $25,000 per annum.
Hmm....tricky. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RACETRAITOR
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Location: Seoul, South Korea
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 6:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yaya wrote: |
Global cooling?
Global warming activists may need to revise their arguments soon. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) recently reported that December of 2007, and January and February of 2008 recorded the coolest temperatures around the world in seven years.
http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art13318.asp |
I've been hearing about global cooling for decades. Considering it's about as bad as global warming, and caused by the same hypothetical phenomena, the global cooling theory does not seem to me like it discredits the global warming people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xingyiman
Joined: 12 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 7:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Justin Hale wrote: |
Overwhelming international consensus of scientists vs hagwon cowboy on $25,000 per annum.
Hmm....tricky. |
There's never been an overwhelming concensus. In the past years there have been political implications to speaking out against the Global Warming phenomena and many known researchers remained tight lipped. But recently more and more have been comoing forward (such as MIT's senior climatologist) and offering dissenting theories. I have no opinion one way or another on the matter. As a Geologist I know that throughout the major epochs the world has successively warmed and cooled to extremes much greater than we are experiencing now. The problem with this whole debate is not in the subject matter it'self but due to the fact that it has been politcally co-opted by the liberal democratic agenda much like other scientific contentions (gay/genetic argument) to the point that no one really can see the forest for the trees due to charged political rhetoric designed to play emotions and sway votes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yaya
Joined: 25 Feb 2003
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Justin Hale wrote: |
Overwhelming international consensus of scientists vs hagwon cowboy on $25,000 per annum.
Hmm....tricky. |
I ain't no hakwon cowboy, and I presented sources. Maybe you should present yours, hakwon cowboy.
Carbon Dioxide
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
By Timothy Ball
Monday, February 5, 2007
Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was one of the first Canadian Ph.Ds. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.
What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?
Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.
No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?
Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.
I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.
Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.
No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.
I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.
In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?
Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.
I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.
Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.
I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.
As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.
Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.
Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.
I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Justin Hale
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Location: the Straight Talk Express
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 9:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Realclimate.org....'climate science by climate scientists'
I simply refuse to consider any lay, base, vulgar and ideologically driven discourse posited by a TEFL teacher wallowing like swine in the pit of Satan's feces that is Korea and its TEFL industry in opposition to the IPCC position on greenhouse gas-caused global climate change. Foam at the mouth all you like. Post link after link all you like, but it's an absolute, total waste of your time. I'm gonna take an absolutely wild stab in the dark and make some assumptions about you. I know one shouldn't use ad hominem, but here it's quite appropriate, because what happens on TEFL message boards such as this is that folks earning their pitiable pittance doing a job whereby the sole 'skill' is being fluent in one's native language posit base, lay discourse in opposition to mountains of scientific evidence. It's simply abomination and wretched malfeasance, contrary as it is to nature, reason, sanity and decency. The utter tawdriness of your salary, qualifications and lifestyle render you totally and fundamentally disqualified to have anything at all of use or importance to say on this issue. You're not a scientist (no, neither am I, but I'm not the one seeking to overthrow a consensus about scientific evidence). You're prolly not even a qualified teacher. Your oodles of work experience as a TEFL jockey is regarded as garbage McWork by employers in the country of your birth. Nobody over the age of 30 should be in Korea earning less than $30,000. Folks who are are usually unemployable, possibly worthless and contemptible bums or even criminals back home. No such individual should be able to challenge science with lay discourse. So, those assumptions: you're a Right Wing conservative (I'm a Left Wing conservative, meaning evolution and manmade climate change receive my subscription). You're a creationist. You disbelieve in evolution. In summary, you're a person I seek absolutely no discourse whatsoever with other than to announce my contempt and ridicule.
There's a further reason why I simply refuse to listen to anything or anyone opposing the IPCC consensus and it is epistemological. If you don't need to immediately visit a dictionary to look up epistemological, well done.  Anything posited in opposition to the IPCC takes place in an intellectual vaccuum, requiring of me to simply dispense with, throw away, the mountains of c02/greenhouse gas evidence, something I'm totally unprepared to do. You don't seek a debate. You seek to set up a simplistic binary. If you really, truly sought a debate, you'd find out first how this evidence - what ever it is (I refuse to consider it) - fits into the whole. We can't just give up on the greenhouse gas evidence and if we are to give up on it, it'll take place via a consensus of scientists, not on a message board of creationist, conspiracy-theorist, constantly drunk hagwon jockeys. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DrunkenMaster
Joined: 04 Feb 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 10:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yaya is a thriving salary-man. Didn't you know that?
He's almost a billionaire. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yaya
Joined: 25 Feb 2003
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 10:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sounds like the global warming facists got to you, and I'm NOT a hakwon cowboy. Thanks at least for admitting you ain't no scientist (and I sure as hell hope you ain't a teacher given that you attacked ME rather than my argument). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Justin Hale
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Location: the Straight Talk Express
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 10:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I gave perfectly defensible conditions for when and why ad hominem is appropriate. Here qualifies. I also gave reason why my not being a scientist is of no significance. I will not consider anything driven by Far Right conservatism in opposition to the IPCC and Realclimate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 10:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Be scared be very very scared!
The next Ice age is coming and you can't stop it!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xingyiman
Joined: 12 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 3:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JMO wrote: |
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
Here is an article(the first one on google actually) which outlines the scientific consensus as of 3 years ago. It has lots of references and footnotes. Check them out. |
As I said earlier, until the democrats in America make it a human issue instead of an election ploy to get college age, nature children motivated enough to not "zone" on election day, then there will never be a resolution one way or another. And by the way I'm not a republican.
Justin Hale's reponse is the typical liberal demorat one and a classic reason why there is so much contention over the issue now. First he alluded to a "consensus" without defining how and why that concensus exists then in defense of himself switches to justifying the use of ad-hominem.
Justin, I don't believe in bigfoot. But since I don't believe in bigfoot that does not motivate me to maliciously attack the characters of thse who do. We simply have a disagreement about the validity of the claims of people who insist these creatures exist. Your outpouring of emotion on the subject points to the fact that your allegience to the democratc party, not clear empirical reasoning is the motivating factor behind your views and thus calls into question your ability to be able to rationally debate any such issue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Justin Hale
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Location: the Straight Talk Express
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 6:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm a Tory in the UK and, yes, usually a Democrat in the US (but not this time - I support McCain, since his position on the environment and energy policy is fundamentally and totally correct - the Dems' position is slightly incorrect). The environment and energy policy is central and fundamental to our problems in the world today. Who ever gets that right gets the presidency. I like Obama and won't cry if he wins, but I want a single term McCain presidency and who ever is next to follow on with McCainism and perhaps improve the position, since McCain gets one or two things wrong as well. A critical figure however.
| X-man wrote: |
| Justin Hale's reponse is the typical liberal demorat one and a classic reason why there is so much contention over the issue now. |
The "debate" lies outside science. Read Newt Gingrich and his scathing condemnation about climate and the environment becoming a "liberal" issue. Newt is right. He usually is.
Inside science, the jury is in. And, as I said, I will simply ignore any lay discourse, any binaries taking place in intellectual and scientific vacuums, any ideological discourse motivated by Far Right creationist conservativism, that seeks to oppose scientific consensus. Wanna know what the consensus is, read realclimate, read the IPCC. The debate is over. It ended some time ago. And it is not about to begin on a message board full of creationsist, conspiracy theorist hagwon muppets earning their pittance in the McWorld of Korean TEFL. Game over. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
