Mountain Buzz banner

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
273 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU

This is a show that aired originally on the BBC, I think. Thought it was very interesting. If that link doesn't work, then just google "Global Warming Swindle"

The basic concept is that a bunch of smart people say that man caused global warming is BULLSHIT! It's an economical issue, not a environmental issue.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it you stinky hippies.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,890 Posts
Done been deconstructed: http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0313pure_propaganda_the.php

Some highlights:

Eight of the scientists in the film - John Christy, Paul Reiter, Richard Lindzen, Paul Driessen, Roy Spencer, Patrick Michaels, Fred Singer and Tim Ball - are linked to American neo-conservative and right-wing think-tanks, many of which have received tens of millions of dollars from Exxon.

One example (Richard Lundzen, featured in the fiilm):
“I don't know very many supporters of Mr Lindzen who are not in the pay of the fossil fuel lobby. Dr Lindzen himself, his research is publicly funded, but Dr Lindzen makes, as he told me, $2,500 a day consulting with fossil fuel interests, and that includes his consulting with OPEC, his consulting with the Australian coal industry, his consulting with the US coal industry and so forth. ” (Tony Jones, ‘Journalist puts global warming sceptics under the spotlight,’ Australian Broadcasting Corporation, March 7, 2005 Good to know one of the film's sources has an allegiance to OPEC, huh?

"A bunch of smart people" indeed. Google any of those guys and read their curriculum vitae; then you'll know where this film's bread was buttered. If they're going to make a case that the Climate Change crowd is motivated by money, then they ought to disclose how their 'research' is funded as well, hmm? To your point: "It's an economical issue, not a environmental issue." That's the only semi-original point you've made, and you're dead-on. Congrats.

BUT- you're entitled to your opinion, however much it falls into the minority. If it makes you feel good to call anyone you disagree with a "hippy", go for it. Hell, we even hope you're right and there is no climate crisis. We'll find out who's right soon enough, I imagine. I just hope there's 'losawater' around when my kids are boaters.

Here's a quote that I believe sums you up in a nutshell, buddy: "Conservatives (by and large) deny anthropogenic climate change because accepting it is associated with environmentalism, which is associated with liberalism. And boy do conservatives hate liberalism. Just as the early years of the Bush II administration were best understood as a reaction against Clinton, much of the conservative movement's approach to scientific issues is best understood as a reaction against liberalism. This isn't to deny the influence of vested interests, especially at the legislative level.[i.e energy companies] But the reason the shills find such fertile ground for their arguments is because they're socking it to the liberals, or so the grass roots thinks."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
273 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
El Flaco

Don't get your dreads in a twist. I have hated hippys my entire life, and you've just drawn a line in the sand, and are standing bare foot on the wrong side, buddy. I can see the blood showing through under your bleeding heart!

I think it's an interesting film, you don't hear much from the other side of things.

Have a magical day, and don't forget to align your crystals.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,890 Posts
Boy, you really got me there :-D :-D. I'm such a big liberal hippy, etc etc. Considering that most of the boaters here are likely concerned about having enough snowpack to boat on, I'm not sure so sure I'm on the "wrong side". Unless you mean that I'm on your "bad side", in which case you've really got me quaking in my Jesus Adidas, let me tell ya... :mrgreen:

You missed my point, which was actually reinforcing yours: Listen to both sides of the argument, but use your common sense and figure out who's really doing the talking. Filter out the agendas; be it the Sierra Club or Exxon. You have Bushie Day too, Brother!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
861 Posts
Classic!! lotsawater clearly illustrates the typical reaction and response of a conservative who has just been called out. Can he actual comeback with a response that rebukes the points made? Nope... he just resorts to attacking the messenger.


lotsawater: The below quote was posted in a previous discussion... try to consider the message. Either way... have a nice day.



Dictionary definition of Apologist: n. A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution
Wikipedia's definition of Apologist: Today the term "apologist" is colloquially applied in a general manner to include groups and individuals systematically promoting causes, justifying orthodoxies, or denying certain events, even of crimes. Apologists have been characterized as being deceptive, or "whitewashing" their cause, primarily through omission of negative facts (selective perception) and exaggeration of positive ones, techniques of classical rhetoric. When used in this context, the term often has a pejorative meaning. The neutralized substitution of "spokesperson" for "apologist" in conversation conveys much the same sense of "partisan presenter with a weighted agenda," with less rhetorical freight.
We could consider that we are ALL apologists in one way or another.

I am willing to defend the literature of climate change presented by the majority of scientists throughout the world because they present their claims with scientific evidence - the closest thing to rational thinking that we have in this world.

To all the global warming deniers: What is it that you are defending? And what are you denying? Why do you choose to ignore scientific evidence? Are you really that arrogant to believe that you are right and the majority of scientists are wrong? I can imagine that the apologist for "smoking is good for you" back in the 1960's had the same arrogant way of thinking. He took the side and defended the guys who made money off tobacco. These tobacco profiteers were "being deceptive, or "whitewashing" their cause [PROFITS] primarily through omission of negative facts (selective perception) and exaggeration of positive ones, techniques of classical rhetoric." This tobacco apologist chose to ignore the experts who had spent years studying the health effects of tobacco. He probably even called these doctors and health experts "lefty nut-jobs". Then one day the smoker apologist came down with lung cancer - the very thing he was warned about but chose to ignore. What a big life lesson that must have been....

CLICK LINK TO SEE EXAMPLE OF MODERN DAY DECEPTION AND WHITEWASHING... http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_rel...g-tobacco.html




 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,890 Posts
Lostallourwater- this should make you really happy:

Permanent drought predicted for Southwest

Chicago Tribune news | Registration

What's interesting about this article is that they do offer an objective viewpoint that takes into account your minority viewpoint:
Although the computer models show the drying has already started, they are not accurate enough to know whether the drought is the result of global warming or a natural variation.

"It's really hard to tell," said Connie Woodhouse, a paleoclimatologist at the University of Arizona. "It may well be one of the first events we can attribute to global warming."

No matter where you stand, this is not good news for boaters and skiers (and their children) in Colorado. Unless, of course, those liberal hippy computer models are powered by the Hollywood Elite.;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
206 Posts
Lostallourwater- this should make you really happy:

Permanent drought predicted for Southwest

Although the computer models show the drying has already started, they are not accurate enough to know whether the drought is the result of global warming or a natural variation.


"It's really hard to tell," said Connie Woodhouse, a paleoclimatologist at the University of Arizona. "It may well be one of the first events we can attribute to global warming."

;)
Computer models are only as good as the info that is used to set the program parameters. Ask any scientist at NOAA, CSU, Woods Hole and anywhere else how much we really know about the Oceans, the atmosphere and anything else Earth related and they will most likely tell you that we know very little and that there are alot of interactions between all of these things that we are only just beginning to understand.

I am all for conservation and alternative energies and also know that it is the future but I am not convinced that we are the cause of Global Warming or that it even exists. My fear is that someone will suggest a fix for Global Warming such as in the book "The Ingenuity Gap" by Thomas Homer-Dixon where the author interviewed a scientist (Wally Broecker) who proposed in his book "How to build a habitable planet" that we could pump the atmoshere full of Sulfur Dioxide with a fleet of 747's which would reflect sunlight back into space, the only effect it would have on the planet would be that the sky would be a lighter shade of blue. What if people had reacted in the 70's when it was a scientific consensus at the time that we were heading into the next ice age by pumping as much CO2 into the air as possible?

We need to conserve first, which is what we should allways be doing anyway, and we need to keep a sane train of thought throughout the whole process. We can't make decisions like California and few other states who want to replace Incandescent bulbs with Compact Flourescents, no one has yet to state how this will effect Mercury levels in ground water near dumps becuase we all know that most people most likely do not follow the instructions on the label and take them to a hazardous waste drop off site when they go bad. Europe is considering banned all flourescents because of Mercury while some politician is trying to get green points by promoting them.

Anyway, it takes effort from everyone to maybe turn down the heat a degree or two in the winter, to try to make one trip to the store each week instead of everyother night, and so on.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,890 Posts
CMA-

I appreciate the input and I always like to see what valid sources are out there. William Gray has been around a long time and I respect his views- they don't appear to be clouded by anyone else's interests. Thanks for the article, and an alternative viewpoint that doesn't allow for other possibilities- we can all have our own opinions and still have a good conversation.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,026 Posts
As stated several times above, I'm all for alternative source of for energy which are cleaner and take our reliance off of the crazy bastards in the Middle East but from what I understand it is still unproven(even scientists argue whether it's 80 or 90% accurate) that CO2 levels are the cause of warming. Correlation doesn't prove/mean causation, I thought science was based in fact not percentages. Also, weather patterns and cycles are the reason we have had some bad hurrican years recently look at charts over the past 100 years and it's as plain as Al Gore's idiocy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,026 Posts
By the way, why is William Gray a crackpot-because he disagrees with you CMA? Maybe you should be checking your sources to see if they may be crackpots. I assure you Mr. Gray is not a crackpot but a well respected climatologist. The real crackpot is Al Gore and his less than esteemable carbon footprint.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
206 Posts
By the way, why is William Gray a crackpot-because he disagrees with you CMA? Maybe you should be checking your sources to see if they may be crackpots. I assure you Mr. Gray is not a crackpot but a well respected climatologist. The real crackpot is Al Gore and his less than esteemable carbon footprint.
If you read my previous posts I was trying to state the fact that I am not convinced that global warming is happening or that it is human caused and despite what everyone thinks there are other opinions on the subject. The crackpot line was a joke at the fact that currently anyone with a differing opinion is called a Republican or a crackpot.
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top