[Janos]

That was kinda the point about my rant a bit ago.

I don't have a problem with the concept that the Earth's climate is warming, it almost certainly is.

My issue with "Global Warming" is that as a concept, it's been taken over by certain individuals and organizations who would use it to further they're political goals instead of making long term plans to help humanity fulfill it's roll as caretakers of this world and adjust to the changes.

That is very relaxing to hear, but why would you use quote marks around Global warming if you almost certainly believed it is happening? Now you should only point out some prominent names that are using this to further their agenda. This would make this argument much more precise. And still why are they doing that, what are their motives, how can they bring tens of thousands of people along etc. These are the questions that can not be simply ignored, as you have for the last 8 pages and 4 years, yet you do, which makes me question the credibility of this conspiracy stuff.

By the way, back in page two your argument against global warming was that it wasn't manmade. Now you say that your problem is with Certain Individuals and Organizations that use it to further their agenda. Of course, whilst the two are not mutually exclusive, the nature of your latest statement leads me to believe that you do question the anthropogenic effect in current extremely rapid climate change, which just so happens to correlate all too well with increased emissions of greenhouse gasses and not at all with other factors, which has been tested time after time. The hypothesises for this are sound and statistically valid, and as a group they from the scientific consensus I love so much: the combined work of thousands of scientists from far and wide.

  I'd like to direct you to Joint Academia Statement on Climate Change. It's pretty easy stuff, aimed at politicians. http://www2.royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=20742 So, for your presumption to be correct, these academia - not individual academics, but p. much a worldwide consesnsus, are either bribed, wrong - this would be enormous and if you prove this you will be the king **** of science - or a part of some kind of conspiracy. These all are very serious claims that require extraordinary evidence.

And you should also point out how people taking advantage of a current event to further their claim makes the scientific basis behind the event any less sound.

BTW, there's a image floating around that Al Gore, among others, are suggesting is representative of what the world will look like in something like 50 years or sommat.  On this photoshopped image there are 4 hurricanes, 2 of which are in locations where it is impossible for hurricanes to form, also, while the Floridian peninsula has shrunk in this image to a fraction of it's original size, Cuba is completely gone.  For Cuba to disappear from an orbital photo the sea level would have to rise something on the order of 6000+ feet, you know what else is that far above sea level?  Denver, Colorado.

Oh, quite interesting. Could you link me to this picture? Thank you in advance.

So basically, you've got a guy who is trying to cash in on a hysteria that he, himself, has been manufacturing.

Do you really think Al Gore had any part in forming the global warming consensus? Here's a hint: he didn't. He was just popularizing stuff that was already popular knowledge in 1990s and even earlier.

And again, of course, the persona of Al Gore has nothing to do with whether the consensus is correct or not.

And one last question: is the Liberator a false flag operation?

[watsisname]

Liberator:  Yeeeah, Cuba would not be _completely_ gone, but I wonder what percentage of the population would be forced to move? <_<

So, does anybody remember that graph Al Gore made in An Inconvenient Truth, with the (millions?) of years of natural temperature oscillation, and then the GARHUGEAN spike on the right-hand (i.e. present-day) end of the graph?

Wasn't it CO2 though and not temperature?  It's been a while since I've seen it though so I might be wrong.

[Liberator]

Request for the photo(shop) as well as an indictment of who's benefiting from the hysteria....granted.

[Scotty]

Skeptical of anything and everything on that site, but the pictures are... (convincing is the wrong word)

[General Battuta]

That doesn't look like a reliable source. Nor do I see how Al Gore's slideshows have anything to do with anything.

Picking at these random circus sideshows is immaterial when such a broad scientific consensus exists, based on publicly accessible data. The more I read on this thread the more convinced I am that I should accept man-made global warming.

[Turambar]

I don't even see why it's a problem.  If there are nefarious, evil interests propagating the "global warming myth," all they're going to do is push for renewable energy, reduced pollution, and possibly better flooding protection and drainage for coastal cities.

those are all good things anyway, the bad thing about this situation is that there needs to be some urgent world-ending pressure behind it for the changes to occur.

[General Battuta]

Yeah, I'm honestly not sure I've seen any serious downsides to the movement towards eco-friendly industry and lifestyles. If anything it just creates new jobs and research opportunities.

[iamzack]

But we'll all be slaves to the New World Order of nazi-socialized obamacare and forced into gay marriages and taught to believe our grandparents were monkeys and forced to pay for lazy black people's cable tv and we'll have no guns and and and

[MP-Ryan]

Yeah, I'm honestly not sure I've seen any serious downsides to the movement towards eco-friendly industry and lifestyles. If anything it just creates new jobs and research opportunities.

So long as the move occurs without a political agenda behind it and is based on sound science.  Look at biofuels if you want to see an example of "green" R&D gone awry.

[Kosh]

I don't think liberator is talking conspiracy, I think he's talking 'bunch of unrelated groups using the same thing because it can be used to further there otherwise unrelated agenda' any group that thinks that people need to be guided to the 'right' decision will use any and all events real or imagined that will allow them to enact legislation that pushes their particular slant.
that's not conspiracy, that's human nature, what liberator needs to do is provide some specific examples.

It was more aimed at what Goober was saying. That being said Liberator's usage of prisonplanet, a well known conspiracy theorist website, as evidence does partially prove my point.

[IceFire]

But we'll all be slaves to the New World Order of nazi-socialized obamacare and forced into gay marriages and taught to believe our grandparents were monkeys and forced to pay for lazy black people's cable tv and we'll have no guns and and and

So.... kind of like Canada for the last....40 years?  Except we haven't suddenly become communists.

Nazism is a form of fascism which is on the opposing side of the political spectrum from socialism/communism so nazi-socialized is impossible.

[iamzack]

And that's the only part of my post you had trouble with? Really?

[perihelion]

MP-Ryan does make a good point about biofuel being The Example of the green movement being used as a tool to prop up interests that have precisely dick to do with protecting the environment or conservationism of any kind.  Anthropogenic global warming is virtually proven as far as I'm concerned, but we will have to be diligent or good science will be co-opted by special interest groups who very much do not have humanity's long-term best interests in mind.  We've already seen how the corn lobby cashed in big time riding the "green" band-wagon.

[Kosh]

But we'll all be slaves to the New World Order of nazi-socialized obamacare and forced into gay marriages and taught to believe our grandparents were monkeys and forced to pay for lazy black people's cable tv and we'll have no guns and and and

So.... kind of like Canada for the last....40 years?  Except we haven't suddenly become communists.

Nazism is a form of fascism which is on the opposing side of the political spectrum from socialism/communism so nazi-socialized is impossible.

I think she was being sarcastic......

[Mars]

But we'll all be slaves to the New World Order of nazi-socialized obamacare and forced into gay marriages and taught to believe our grandparents were monkeys and forced to pay for lazy black people's cable tv and we'll have no guns and and and

So.... kind of like Canada for the last....40 years?  Except we haven't suddenly become communists.

Nazism is a form of fascism which is on the opposing side of the political spectrum from socialism/communism so nazi-socialized is impossible.

I think she was being sarcastic......

lmfao, just maybe. (no offense to Icefire of course, but I just found this rather funny)

[Janos]

Request for the photo(shop) as well as an indictment of who's benefiting from the hysteria....granted.

Thank you! Seems quite fishy, but I do have problems of finding these in trustworthy sources - hell, I find denialist blogs and Alex Jones. And what does Al Gore has to do with whether the science is sound or not?

How about the rest of the questions?

[Janos]

Yeah, I'm honestly not sure I've seen any serious downsides to the movement towards eco-friendly industry and lifestyles. If anything it just creates new jobs and research opportunities.

So long as the move occurs without a political agenda behind it and is based on sound science.  Look at biofuels if you want to see an example of "green" R&D gone awry.

What is a move towards a specific goal without political agenda? Especially since it's about societies and infrastructure and enabled by leaders in these countries?

You see, changing society or the way it works is usually done by trying to influence said society or forcing it to adopt several changes. Such action is known as politics.
Even if it happens completely without coercion or any political body having anything to say about it (say, like some sort of... invisible hand?) - which is a really dumb thing in this case because there is a high possibility we simply do not have time - there will inevitably be someone who will and does influence the process in some ways. At that point, bam, political influence.

Please name a society-wide change that didn't have any kind of associated political or economic-political movement or faction either driving it or benefitting it.

[Inquisitor]

So the "fraud" isn't that there is no such thing as Global Warming, or even that its anthropogenic, its that someone or some group is using it for some sort of (nebulous) political gain?

Pot meet kettle.

[General Battuta]

This is a truly fantastic read. Everybody should check it out. Really cuts through the politics and gives the current scientific consensus on global warming.

The broad outline, though, deviates little from the IPCC's conclusions -unequivocal evidence of warming, more than 90% likelihood that humanity's emissions of greenhouse gases were principally to blame, projections of temperature and sea level rise, declining crop yields, mountain glacier melt, and considerable damage to ecosystems and the human economy.

Fascinating stuff. Apparently the sun has been ruled out as a source of temperature variation.

[butter_pat_head]

For those who are able to tune-in (FM, DAB or web if possible):  BBC Radio 4's 'The Moral Maze' is discussing this tonight live at 20:00 GMT.

EDIT:  Just checked the schedule.  They aren't talking about climate change, rather: (taken from the Radio4 website)

Can science ever be truly morally neutral? The leaking of e-mails from the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit has raised the issue of where should we draw the line between science and campaigning? In a complex world of competing interests, it's vital that we have an independent and rational method to judge and inform policies. But is it naive to expect scientists to put their personal views aside when dealing with such an important issue? Do we rely too much on scientific evidence to shape policy and is it driving out political and moral debate in society?