Leading Global Warming Skeptic changes mind after watching Al Gore Speak

[Ramona_A_Stone]

Originally Posted by albed

Wow, observing the weather makes people "incredulous experts" to Ramona!

Uhm, no. You were not merely observing the weather, you were attempting, however lamely, to use your observations of the weather to deride an idea which you clearly have chosen 'not to believe in,' and you seem to think that because it's been 20 degrees colder than usual where you live lately, you can make a mockery of the concept of global warming.

Saying "now cold wave-global warming" as if it's something thought of last week during an unseasonably cool evening implies you know little about even the most general theories of climate change, because the concept that erratic weather, global cooling, and indeed 'another ice age' could be the ultimate result of global warming has been ubiquitously inherent to them for decades. Also inherent to them is the idea that micro-anomalies are quite meaningless, indeed changes over decades and even centuries can be quite meaningless, and there simply isn't enough data to draw firm conclusions. One certainly isn't going to insist that every local flood, drought or cold snap is evidence of anything.

But then I'm not the one using micro-anomalies to try to make a point, am I?

Nope.

[albed]

I don't "choose" to believe or disbelieve, the evidence and rationale either convinces me or doesn't.

Frankly the evidence has been very questionable and I've observed the rationale mutate over the years to become more acceptable to potential converts. Even the name "global warming" is being altered to "climate change" to make it more indistinct and less disprovable.

Now, no matter what happens to the climate, the global warming dogma will have predicted it and predetermined it's cause; mankinds activity. So the faithful will have no reason to doubt and leave the fold.

But still; "global cooling can be caused by global warming" just seems too irrational for even the most ignorant and gullible to accept.

[Ramona_A_Stone]

I ask myself what I could possibly say to make the scope of your ignorance more obvious and realize A: I could never compete with you yourself because you work so hard at it preserving it, and B: half a squirrel neuron in a petri dish of gelatin would surely get it anyway.

[albed]

I'm so glad you found your intellectual equal. Enjoy conversing with it.

[Mazer]

Originally Posted by Ramona_A_Stone

Saying "now cold wave-global warming" as if it's something thought of last week during an unseasonably cool evening implies you know little about even the most general theories of climate change, because the concept that erratic weather, global cooling, and indeed 'another ice age' could be the ultimate result of global warming has been ubiquitously inherent to them for decades.

True, in fact that idea was so ubiquitous decades ago that everyone thought an ice age was already beginning. It never occurred to anybody that the mid-century cooling trend would end and temperatures would rebound by more than a degree celsius before the end of the century. The predictions have changed, but the alarmism hasn't subsided.

Also inherent to them is the idea that micro-anomalies are quite meaningless, indeed changes over decades and even centuries can be quite meaningless, and there simply isn't enough data to draw firm conclusions. One certainly isn't going to insist that every local flood, drought or cold snap is evidence of anything.

But then I'm not the one using micro-anomalies to try to make a point, am I?

Nobody has tried to make that point. We're observing that this winter has lasted ten weeks longer than Punxsutawney Phill predicted. Two extra months of relatively cold weather is anomalous but notable because nobody anticipated it, to my knowledge. Maybe other groundhogs got it right, in which case their word is more reliable than any climatologist's.

[Mazer]

I watched An Inconvenient Truth last year after downloading it (I didn't feel the need to pay to see it) and I though it was well made, well reasoned, and optimistic about humanity's ability to fix global problems. But Gore skimmed over most of the science in his slide show and focused more on drama. Al Gore is an alarmist, by definition, and alarmism has come to exemplify the issue of anthropogenic global warming. So where's the science?

I came across this documentary in two parts today that discusses many of the points made in Gore's documentary as well as this year's IPCC report. The science simply does not support pessimism, and in many cases it doesn't support any moral conclusions at all, and that's what this video makes clear. It is a speech given by Dr. Steven Hayward, a scientist who for the past twelve years has compiled an annual report on environmental issues, the Index of Leading Environmental Indicators. His studies have highlighted all the improvements our civilization has made to the environment as well as the areas where more improvement is still needed. This is the man with his hand on the pulse of environmental science.

This documentary shows that the so called 'scientific consensus' on global warming is anything but. There is conflicting and sometimes contradictory evidence in the field of global climate, but mostly there's just a lot of uncertainty. So be wary of any person who tells you that the science is settled and the debate is closed, study the science yourself and find your own conclusions.

An Inconvenient Truth... or Convenient Fiction?
Part 1
Part 2

Edit: A copy of the Index of Leading Environmental Indicators, Twelfth Edition is available here (PDF, 3.3MB) from the Pacific Research Institute for those interested in reading some good news about the environment for a change.

[albed]

John Kerry follows in Al Gore's footsteps.

With the release of his book: "This Moment on Earth: Today's New Environmentalists and Their Vision for the Future" Kerry got the same hypocrisy check of his energy consumption that Gore got, with the same result; another energy pig.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics....20070416a.html

As Sen. John Kerry promotes his new book on the dangers of global warming, he's been running up an average electric bill of $1,100 a month

No real surprise and it's trivial compared to his constant fuel guzzling jet travel but it once again highlights the hypocrisy of the preachers of the worlds new religion and raises the question; do they really believe in what they're promoting or are they just using the rhetoric to manipulate the masses and increase their political power?

[Nicobie]

Originally Posted by albed

preachers of the worlds new religion and raises the question; do they really believe in what they're promoting or are they just using the rhetoric to manipulate the masses and increase their political power?

Well, what do U think, more godshit?

Sounds like a religion to me...

[Drakonix]

Since global warming "concerns" are not based on science or fact, politically based motives is the most likely explanation. Specifically, tax the crap out of everything and take away freedom. Especially trash the second amendment so that the populace (once they find out they have been screwed) can not fight back as the founding documents authorize.

[Ramona_A_Stone]

Since global warming "denials" are also not based on science or fact, politically based motives is the most likely explanation. Specifically, protect the immediate profit potentials of exploitation and abuse of the environment, eschew new research and technologies to keep those profits maximized and properly funneled, accept your fate as a consumer, and let future generations piss up their own rope.

Originally Posted by Drakonix

Especially trash the second amendment so that the populace (once they find out they have been screwed) can not fight back as the founding documents authorize.

Jeez, and anyone who maintains our affect on the environment might be worth considering get called "alarmists."

Apropos of most of the rest of the world's stereotyping, Americans represent about 7% of the planet's population, reaping a full third of the resources consumed, producing 5 times the waste and seeming to give somewhat less than half a fuck. What we'd really like is another layer of brightly colored packaging on our fast food so our fat kids can throw it out the window of our hummers with pride.



But seriously, I don't believe these denials, based as they seem to be on nothing but a kind of misguided "anti-liberalism," actually deserve to be called "politically based motives" at all. In the big picture it's really just intellectual laziness, or a kind of mental tinnitus born of prolonged exposure to cognitive dissonance.

...well, dissonance at least.