[Mefustae]

The most simplified version of what I'm trying to say in all of these types of threads: Stop acting like the idiot population of the US is the only population. However large it may be, it is not the only.

Fair enough, but rather than foaming at the mouth at any negative statement towards the US, how about you take Flipside's advice to heart and point out that you are not an idiot. If you see something you disagree with, then challenge it openly and passionately, and we will listen. Simply calling for the thread to be locked only weakens your position, doesn't help anyone, and makes you come across as a prat (which goes for mimic monkeys like BloodEagle too, get your own damn opinion!).

So either suck it up and throw something useful into the debate, or just **** off and ignore the thread altogether.

Anyway, back OT: I've not been paying much close attention to the current potentials in the US presidential election race, but would a Democratic win put a more favorable view on the Global Warming issue into the White House or would it likely remain the same?

[WMCoolmon]

Every time there is a thread like this, I like this place a little less.

You know, if I lock 'em people complain, if I leave them open, people complain.

This was why postcount was turned off in here.

And how is the situation with global warming any different? People that don't believe that humans are causing or can do anything about global warming will try to tell you that you're gullible for believing Al Gore's political shennanigans.

As for people that do believe - well, this thread would seem to label me a racist and a mass murderer who's responsible for war crimes because I live in the US. There's no thought given to who's actually responsible, it's just 'they' and 'them'. That is what I, personally, dislike about this thread. I haven't said a word for or against environmentalism, and I'm already supposedly guilty by association of war crimes.

Is this how career environmentalists want to be viewed? As a bunch of whiners who blame entire countries when one piece of legislation doesn't go their way?

Furthermore, I don't pretend to understand the science or evidence behind global warming like most people do. I leave that to the people who care and want to be a part of that flamefest. But from what I've experienced, both sides will claim you're an idiot if you either (A) naively believe that global warming can be prevented, or (B) can't see the validity of the evidence that's staring you in the face.

So all this name-calling just leaves me walking away from both sides. I guess that would technically be a win for the people who don't believe in global warming, but I don't see how I can remain neutral. Plant half-trees or something?

[Polpolion]

The most simplified version of what I'm trying to say in all of these types of threads: Stop acting like the idiot population of the US is the only population. However large it may be, it is not the only.

Fair enough, but rather than foaming at the mouth at any negative statement towards the US, how about you take Flipside's advice to heart and point out that you are not an idiot. If you see something you disagree with, then challenge it openly and passionately, and we will listen. Simply calling for the thread to be locked only weakens your position, doesn't help anyone, and makes you come across as a prat (which goes for mimic monkeys like BloodEagle too, get your own damn opinion!).

So either suck it up and throw something useful into the debate, or just **** off and ignore the thread altogether.

Why do people keep thinking that I specifically asked for this thread to be locked? You make it sound like I just blatantly shouted "LOCK THIS THREAD OR DIE!!!".

First, I stated that I don't like these threads, Flipside stated that he can't lock it. I could see how you interpret it from my next post, but I never said there that locking the thread was the only option. I forget what flipside then said, but then I said something that implied that just telling the people to stop the generalizations would be fine. Then I reworded my previous post for clarifacation, and then I made my current previous post.

I'd write more, but I want this particular aspect of the thread to die...

[Flipside]

Every time there is a thread like this, I like this place a little less.

You know, if I lock 'em people complain, if I leave them open, people complain.

This was why postcount was turned off in here.

And how is the situation with global warming any different? People that don't believe that humans are causing or can do anything about global warming will try to tell you that you're gullible for believing Al Gore's political shennanigans.

As for people that do believe - well, this thread would seem to label me a racist and a mass murderer who's responsible for war crimes because I live in the US. There's no thought given to who's actually responsible, it's just 'they' and 'them'. That is what I, personally, dislike about this thread. I haven't said a word for or against environmentalism, and I'm already supposedly guilty by association of war crimes.

Is this how career environmentalists want to be viewed? As a bunch of whiners who blame entire countries when one piece of legislation doesn't go their way?

Furthermore, I don't pretend to understand the science or evidence behind global warming like most people do. I leave that to the people who care and want to be a part of that flamefest. But from what I've experienced, both sides will claim you're an idiot if you either (A) naively believe that global warming can be prevented, or (B) can't see the validity of the evidence that's staring you in the face.

So all this name-calling just leaves me walking away from both sides. I guess that would technically be a win for the people who don't believe in global warming, but I don't see how I can remain neutral. Plant half-trees or something?

Because the thread is referring to the Environment meetings in Bali, all IPAndrews was commenting on was the current American position with regards to those meetings.

Now, I'm perfectly willing to agree that the first post could be a little more specific, don't have a problem with that, but I know you remember the days following the reshuffle, when threads were being locked at about 10 a day, rather than assuming that what someone says is directed at you, just spend a few minutes and ask yourself how else it can be interpreted. I've done it myself, taken a post in a particular way and then realised that I've found offence because, in a way, I was looking for it.

I will change the title to 'The US Governments' attitude towards Global Warming', hopefully that will clear up some confusion? He's not criticising you personally, only the policy.

[BloodEagle]

[...] (which goes for mimic monkeys like BloodEagle too, get your own damn opinion!).

How in the Hell does agreeing with someone make me a "mimic monkey"? 

By the way... just so you know, and seeing as how you don't know; it is possible for two people to have the same opinion about a specific thing. 

--------------------------------------------

And yes, I'll admit that the word racist is technically wrong; I was to lazy to type out "gross misrepresentation and over generalization of the population of the US". If it makes you feel better, I'll go back and change it.

Just so there's no confusion, which I seem to see somehow.... I was just pointing it out, I still agree with the statement and everything. 

[WMCoolmon]

Because the thread is referring to the Environment meetings in Bali, all IPAndrews was commenting on was the current American position with regards to those meetings.

Now, I'm perfectly willing to agree that the first post could be a little more specific, don't have a problem with that, but I know you remember the days following the reshuffle, when threads were being locked at about 10 a day, rather than assuming that what someone says is directed at you, just spend a few minutes and ask yourself how else it can be interpreted. I've done it myself, taken a post in a particular way and then realised that I've found offence because, in a way, I was looking for it.

I will change the title to 'The US Governments' attitude towards Global Warming', hopefully that will clear up some confusion? He's not criticising you personally, only the policy.

Just because I was one of the people who complained about the number of threads being locked doesn't mean that I think every thread needs to stay open. I also didn't ask for this thread to be locked. I've seen this thread for the last day or so and it's annoyed me, but I didn't think it was a good idea to say anything until:

If you see something you disagree with, then challenge it openly and passionately, and we will listen.

Which was the first time that I saw a way in to the thread.

As for me getting defensive, it's too complex to explain. Maybe someone else can, but I feel like you've either been in this position and you know how it feels, or you haven't, or you're just different enough that you really don't see why it's worth it to me to respond at all.

[TrashMan]

And how is the situation with global warming any different? People that don't believe that humans are causing or can do anything about global warming will try to tell you that you're gullible for believing Al Gore's political shennanigans.

Doesn't the majority of the scientific community agree taht we caused it and that we have to do something about it?

But then again, people tend to listen to scintists, lawyers, facts and evidence only when it suits them

[NGTM-1R]

And how is the situation with global warming any different? People that don't believe that humans are causing or can do anything about global warming will try to tell you that you're gullible for believing Al Gore's political shennanigans.

Doesn't the majority of the scientific community agree taht we caused it and that we have to do something about it?

But then again, people tend to listen to scintists, lawyers, facts and evidence only when it suits them

No, actually.

They agree it's happening, sure, but not that we caused it. It's an open question as to whether we caused it, we are accelerating a natural process that was ongoing already, or it's not our fault at all...yet. Doubtless we have the capablity to cause it, but it's not sure that it would take effect as quickly as it has.

[TrashMan]

Yes actually.

From what I read most scientist agree we caused it.

[BloodEagle]

From what I read most scientist agree we caused it. [citation needed]

[Flipside]

To be honest, when the Lea Valley floods, and I'm busy pulling all my belongings up the stairs, I don't give a monkeys if it's man-made or not, it doesn't make the floodwater any drier.

[Hazaanko]

Thread necromancy ftw

Over 400 scientists dispute "manmade" global warming.


Edit:

However, Western emission cutbacks will reflect in productivity levels.  I'm of the mindset that we're better to put as much effort into new technologies as possible, even if it means continuing with only slight reductions in overall emission levels until a binding deal can be forged that includes everyone.

Cutbacks in the Western nations are absolutely meaningless unless we can get China and India to meet the same targets.  By contrast, if we set less ambitious targets and get everyone on board, perhaps a gradual and practical solution can be found.  Setting targets in the West and trying to force it on less developed nations later without a gradual introductory period is going to do nothing but cause chaos.

I'd rather have politicians like Harper at the table pointing at India and going "they have to be included too" then setting lesser targets for everyone, than Brown's idealism which is going to make the situation worse - the more China and India develop in industry, they less willing they're going to be to spend more money and give up those production levels.

Wow.  For once I actually agree with MP-Ryan.  And its not the usual gigantic wall of text!!!???!!!  What's up with that?   

[jr2]

Nice.  About time.  Now they can wrangle it out instead of saying:

"All the scientists say global warming is out doing and only quackpots disagree; there's only a few dozen who do so."

"That's not true!  Many scientists disagree!"

Ah... names.  Research papers & sites.  Good stuff.  Now maybe we'll get somewhere. 

[Flipside]

Many of those scientists are sceptical of the Alarmist outlook given by the UN review, that doesn't mean that they think we don't have any impact at all, they just think things are not as bad as Al Gore makes out. If you take Al Gore as a comparison, as that document does, then I'm a sceptic.....

[Mefustae]

Many of those scientists are sceptical of the Alarmist outlook given by the UN review, that doesn't mean that they think we don't have any impact at all, they just think things are not as bad as Al Gore makes out. If you take Al Gore as a comparison, as that document does, then I'm a sceptic.....

No, don't try to explain it away, it's proof. Total, undeniable proof that we aren't causing global warming. Proof that we haven't caused anything, and by extension can't fix anything. So let's just kick up our heels, sit back, and relax with a tall margarita. Everything's gonna be all right.

[Mika]

I have always thought that the argument about "we should do something to prevent the climate change" is a little bit black and white.

How the hell do you know those actions have any possible means to prevent the climate change? There is a huge risk of global instability also from that side. I have not seen many studies about the reversibility of the climate change. Also regarding the congressional link, it seems that the UN IPCC report has some shaky background in the reviewing process. I should contact one of those listed scientists to ask about some questions, if I find time and interest.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that even if climate change would happen, it is pretty much something you need to adapt to. Climate change has happened, happens and will happen in cycles even without the presence of man.

Personally, my opinion is that the best thing about global warming is that it will hit hardest the most polluting areas.

Mika

[Kosh]

http://www.desmogblog.com/science-committee-slams-industry-funded-climate-science-attack


I wonder how many of those scientists were bought and paid for by certain industries. So yeah, what kind of research have those guys done?

Ah, a breath of fresh air on Capitol Hill today. Was it the spring air? Nope, it was a Congressional Subcommittee hearing today questioning industry efforts within science agencies, like NASA, NOAA and the EPA, to control federal scientists and confuse the public around the science of global warming.

Ahhhh, sweet sweet exposure.

[TrashMan]

Given that are thousands of scientists around, 400 ARE a minority

[Hazaanko]

I wonder how many of those scientists were bought and paid for by certain industries. So yeah, what kind of research have those guys done?

Kosh Kosh Kosh... ever the resident conspiracy theorist.  While there is the possibility that the accusations are true, I suppose we can all continue wondering, since after lengthy investigations, absolutely no evidence was ever found linking "those scientists" to "certain industries."  Shady indeed.  On the other hand, "man-made" global warming theorists/scientists have been making a killing off of the idea.  Tourism, government funding, even oceanic cruises (a couple of which have sunk due to running into ice as I recall.  How is that for irony?).  You name it.  Do I really even have to name Al Gore as an example?  Don't make me go there please.  I don't think anybody likes talking about Gore.

Given that are thousands of scientists around, 400 ARE a minority

ZOMG fascist Canadian news article
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/968
Extra reading:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=595F6F41-802A-23AD-4BC4-B364B623ADA3

[Mika]

The problem with Climate Change is that it is heavily politized question. Let me start with a question that what makes you think that federal scientists will not have a bias caused by funding from environmental groups?

After reading IPCC's report, I would go on to the proponents site, like this:
http://www.john-daly.com/index.htm
and read the alternative point of view.

There are certain articles listed in there, like these that I find to be very interesting:
http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm (<- this is especially interesting, I have been wondering about the history of the hysteria for quite a long time. It certainly is not un-biased, though.)
http://www.john-daly.com/theodor/co2new.htm
http://www.john-daly.com/guests/jet.htm
http://www.john-daly.com/theodor/DecadalEnso.htm
http://www.john-daly.com/solar/US-drought.htm
http://www.john-daly.com/guests/tim-ball.htm
http://www.john-daly.com/dietze/cmodcalc.htm
http://www.john-daly.com/cooling.htm
http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=55387187-4d06-446f-9f4f-c2397d155a32&p=1
http://www.hilltimes.com/html/cover_index.php?display=story&full_path=/2007/may/28/letter4/&c=1

I'm perfectly aware there are little references to publications in these articles and the author is most likely heavily linked to energy industry. So, is it mudslinging by energy industry, or valid arguments coming from people who have been employed by energy companies [if you cannot alter the facts, attack the ways facts are obtained]? Or comments by concerned scientists? By my judgement, there is still some legitimaty in these articles.

One thing to note is that some of the article writers honestly and openly admit they are working for energy companies. How easily can you get the funding group information from scientifical articles? Besides, there are some strange tones what one could read along the lines about the quality of scientists and engineers working in the industry in general.

According to my observations, the industry and military will employ the best of the classes and have far more demanding tasks. This is simply because you cannot do business by being stupid and making big mistakes in the analysis, so you might as well call them even better qualified than University researchers.

The truth about if global warming is caused by man lies most likely somewhere between these two sides. Adaption is the solution, which ever way the future will play.

Mika