Is Global Warming a Myth?

[WinePusher]

Some eminent scientists now believe the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century – a process that would expose computer forecasts of imminent catastrophic warming as dangerously misleading.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... tions.html

A report from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado finds that Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007. But didn’t we hear from the same Center that the North Pole was set to disappear by now? We all deserve apologies from the global warming fanatics who wanted to reshape the world in their image and called those who objected to their wild theories ignorant deniers.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/wat ... p-growing/

1) Does this new information show that Anthropogenic Global Warming is false?

[bluethread]

It sounds more like the GW people are promoting the scare. Also, are you aware that Nazi stands for National Socialist, ie socialist fascism? That is hardly a "right wing" goal.

Actually, it is facist goal. The think tanks that deny it are financed by oil interests. The koch brothers donated over 70 million dollars to organizations to deny global warming.

Fascism is not the attempt of private citizens and corporations to influence public policy. That is political speech.

Webster

: a way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government

: very harsh control or authority

Emphasis Mine

In the extreme it could be called corporate oligarchy. That oligarchy could be fascist, if the government were controlled by one or a few corporations that required all other business to comply with their dictates. In this case, the influence is designed to reduce regulation and not increase it. Therefore it can not be fascist.

fatherlearningtolove:

So, if you're a smoker, and I start showing you pictures of your black lungs, you're going to say "everything you say is invalid and I'm not going to listen to you because you're trying to scare me"?!!!!

That is the argument of smokers that I know. Personally, I do not think that information is invalid simply because it is used to scare people. That appears to be your argument with the use of the "Red Scare" and "Nazi" comments. I do not think that most people who question global warming base their arguments on a hatred for the green movement. The credibility of the green movement is questioned based on the tactics of the associated extremists. The rejection of global warming is based on the inconsistency of the evidence presented and the apparent political bias of the green movement in interpreting that evidence.

[fatherlearningtolove]

The credibility of the green movement is questioned based on the tactics of the associated extremists. The rejection of global warming is based on the inconsistency of the evidence presented and the apparent political bias of the green movement in interpreting that evidence.

Lemme clue you in to what is going on here: look at statistics of WHO is questioning Global Warming. It's all conservative Republicans, man. They are so stuck in their stupid, individualistic, "I don't need no gubmint! I pull mahself up bah mah bootstraps!" thinking, that it is inconceivable that Global Warming could be true, because if it were, that would mean that people would HAVE to work together in order to do something about it. And if that were true, they'd have to give up their stupid, anti-government, "if you don't catch a lucky break in society then screw you - helping would be socialism" politics.

[bluethread]

The credibility of the green movement is questioned based on the tactics of the associated extremists. The rejection of global warming is based on the inconsistency of the evidence presented and the apparent political bias of the green movement in interpreting that evidence.

Lemme clue you in to what is going on here: look at statistics of WHO is questioning Global Warming. It's all conservative Republicans, man. They are so stuck in their stupid, individualistic, "I don't need no gubmint! I pull mahself up bah mah bootstraps!" thinking, that it is inconceivable that Global Warming could be true, because if it were, that would mean that people would HAVE to work together in order to do something about it. And if that were true, they'd have to give up their stupid, anti-government, "if you don't catch a lucky break in society then screw you - helping would be socialism" politics.

Glad to see there is no bias on your part.

[fatherlearningtolove]

The credibility of the green movement is questioned based on the tactics of the associated extremists. The rejection of global warming is based on the inconsistency of the evidence presented and the apparent political bias of the green movement in interpreting that evidence.

Lemme clue you in to what is going on here: look at statistics of WHO is questioning Global Warming. It's all conservative Republicans, man. They are so stuck in their stupid, individualistic, "I don't need no gubmint! I pull mahself up bah mah bootstraps!" thinking, that it is inconceivable that Global Warming could be true, because if it were, that would mean that people would HAVE to work together in order to do something about it. And if that were true, they'd have to give up their stupid, anti-government, "if you don't catch a lucky break in society then screw you - helping would be socialism" politics.

Glad to see there is no bias on your part.

I WAS a conservative Republican - one of the best of them! I engaged in many debates in defense of George W. Bush! And slowly, over time, I began to think: "something is wrong. I don't feel like I'm 'winning' any of these debates."

If anyone has a "right" to be biased, it's me. I have been on both sides. I know both sides.

Modern Republicanism is a cult. Plain and simple. The only way they are able to keep people in line is by teaching paranoia and keeping their followers from thinking about data.

[Goat]

The credibility of the green movement is questioned based on the tactics of the associated extremists. The rejection of global warming is based on the inconsistency of the evidence presented and the apparent political bias of the green movement in interpreting that evidence.

Lemme clue you in to what is going on here: look at statistics of WHO is questioning Global Warming. It's all conservative Republicans, man. They are so stuck in their stupid, individualistic, "I don't need no gubmint! I pull mahself up bah mah bootstraps!" thinking, that it is inconceivable that Global Warming could be true, because if it were, that would mean that people would HAVE to work together in order to do something about it. And if that were true, they'd have to give up their stupid, anti-government, "if you don't catch a lucky break in society then screw you - helping would be socialism" politics.

Let's look at a few of those groups.

the American Enterprise Institute .. They offered scientists 10,000, plus travel expenses to write articles to criticise reports.

More than 20 employees of the AEI worked as consultants to the bush administration. Exxon Mobil gave 1.6 million dollars to help raise doubt about Global Warming.


Global Climate Coalition
The following companies got together to deny global warming

The Aluminum Association
American Highway Users Alliance
British Petroleum
DaimlerChrysler
Exxon / Esso
Ford Motor Company
General Motors Corporation
Shell Oil USA

The Donors Trust, and Donors Capital Fund bankrolled over 100 thinktanks to criticize AGW. They were funded by conservative businessmen. the Koch Brothers were heavy donors to those funds.

The Heartland Institute- Funded largely by the Koch Brothers. The Hearland Institute also worked with Phillips tobacco to show there was no link between smoking and lung disease.

More about the Heartland Institute and global warming here http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/ec ... 53235836/1

[bluethread]

The credibility of the green movement is questioned based on the tactics of the associated extremists. The rejection of global warming is based on the inconsistency of the evidence presented and the apparent political bias of the green movement in interpreting that evidence.

Lemme clue you in to what is going on here: look at statistics of WHO is questioning Global Warming. It's all conservative Republicans, man. They are so stuck in their stupid, individualistic, "I don't need no gubmint! I pull mahself up bah mah bootstraps!" thinking, that it is inconceivable that Global Warming could be true, because if it were, that would mean that people would HAVE to work together in order to do something about it. And if that were true, they'd have to give up their stupid, anti-government, "if you don't catch a lucky break in society then screw you - helping would be socialism" politics.

Glad to see there is no bias on your part.

I WAS a conservative Republican - one of the best of them! I engaged in many debates in defense of George W. Bush! And slowly, over time, I began to think: "something is wrong. I don't feel like I'm 'winning' any of these debates."

If anyone has a "right" to be biased, it's me. I have been on both sides. I know both sides.

Modern Republicanism is a cult. Plain and simple. The only way they are able to keep people in line is by teaching paranoia and keeping their followers from thinking about data.

Everyone has a right to their biases. It is just fallacious to base one's arguments on those biases, as you previously tried to point out what you referred to scare tactics and Nazism. It appears we have come full circle, as I tried to point out. It is scare tactics and Nazism when the other side does it, even if those terms do not literally apply. However, when the preferred side does it, it is justified bias. I have not waded into the actual evidence, but have been an observer here. I was just pointing out that demonizing cuts both ways and adds little credibility to either side of the argument.

[otseng]

The claim being made by the insane, Red Scare, Neo-Nazi Right Wing nutjobs is that we don't need to listen to 97% of those elitist scientist types - we can make up our own stupid factless psuedo-science!

And if that were true, they'd have to give up their stupid, anti-government, "if you don't catch a lucky break in society then screw you - helping would be socialism" politics.

Moderator Comment

Be reminded that this place is for civil debates. Please do not post any inflammatory rhetoric.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Goat]

The credibility of the green movement is questioned based on the tactics of the associated extremists. The rejection of global warming is based on the inconsistency of the evidence presented and the apparent political bias of the green movement in interpreting that evidence.

Lemme clue you in to what is going on here: look at statistics of WHO is questioning Global Warming. It's all conservative Republicans, man. They are so stuck in their stupid, individualistic, "I don't need no gubmint! I pull mahself up bah mah bootstraps!" thinking, that it is inconceivable that Global Warming could be true, because if it were, that would mean that people would HAVE to work together in order to do something about it. And if that were true, they'd have to give up their stupid, anti-government, "if you don't catch a lucky break in society then screw you - helping would be socialism" politics.

Glad to see there is no bias on your part.

I WAS a conservative Republican - one of the best of them! I engaged in many debates in defense of George W. Bush! And slowly, over time, I began to think: "something is wrong. I don't feel like I'm 'winning' any of these debates."

If anyone has a "right" to be biased, it's me. I have been on both sides. I know both sides.

Modern Republicanism is a cult. Plain and simple. The only way they are able to keep people in line is by teaching paranoia and keeping their followers from thinking about data.

Everyone has a right to their biases. It is just fallacious to base one's arguments on those biases, as you previously tried to point out what you referred to scare tactics and Nazism. It appears we have come full circle, as I tried to point out. It is scare tactics and Nazism when the other side does it, even if those terms do not literally apply. However, when the preferred side does it, it is justified bias. I have not waded into the actual evidence, but have been an observer here. I was just pointing out that demonizing cuts both ways and adds little credibility to either side of the argument.

I don't like invoking the term 'nazism'. Now, it appears that accusations of 'scare tactics' is very prevalent with the deniers, but as far as i can see, facts are facts. It seem very short sighted to me to , for example, not take into account the projected sea level rising (at least near the minimum projected amount), when doing development planning. South Carolina made a law saying that worrying about sea level rise is not required for planning coastal development. In the rather short term, that is going to be a boom to development, but the not to long term , that can cause many billions of dollars of damage due to poor planning. While I am not sure of the potential for climate change and drought , but I know that I would be cautious if I was going to buy near the coast.

Even in the best case scenario, things will happen. The question , for me, is planning out how to figure out to make the best of the situation. It's gonna happen.. one way or another. I figure, plan for the worse, and hope for the best

[fatherlearningtolove]

There's really no difference between a climate change denier and a smoker who looks at a picture his doctor shows him of his black lungs and says "you're making this up. The cigarette company told me so."

[keithprosser3]

There is one difference. The smoker is only putting himself at risk. Deniers are putting us all at risk.