Go Back   Motorcycle Forum > Other > Motorcycle.Com Lounge

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-08-2009, 08:34 AM   #51
acecycleins
Founding Member
 
acecycleins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: North Georgia
Posts: 4,129
Default I say get the Mythbusters on it.

Four reasonable reason why this Global Warming subject is complete bunk.

Four Colossal Holes in the
Theory of Man-Made Global
Warming
John Hawkins
Tuesday, December 08, 2009

Repeating the words "scientific consensus" over and over and
telling sad stories about polar bears does not qualify as
"science." So, why is it that the people who insist that Manmade
global warming is based on science, not politics, always
get shaky and defensive when people want to actually talk
about the reasoning behind it?
When was the last time you heard a scientist get hysterical when you asked him to explain Einstein's theory of
relativity? If you ask a scientist why nothing can move faster than the speed of light, he doesn't tell you a terrible
story about how koala bears will die if you don't believe the theory is right, does he? Scientists who are confident
and in command of the facts don't need to distort data and duck basic questions about the assumptions that are
behind scientific theories.
So, why is it that the people who insist that man-made global warming is occurring right now can't come up with
coherent answers to many of the most basic problems with the ideas that undergird their theory?
Climate change has been around as long as the earth: If you listen to global warming alarmists, you'd think
the climate had been a flat line until mankind started industrializing, after which the temperature rocketed straight
upwards. However, the reality is far different, as even the New York Times has been willing to admit:
In October, Dr. (Don) Easterbrook made similar points at the geological society meeting in
Philadelphia. He hotly disputed Mr. Gore's claim that "our civilization has never experienced any
environmental shift remotely similar to this" threatened change.
Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed temperature
trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period.
These shifts, he said, were up to "20 times greater than the warming in the past century."
Blog | Talk Radio Online | Columnists | Your Opinion | The News | Photos | Cartoons | Books & Movies | Issues | Action Center
Townhall.com - Printer Friendly Page 1 of 3
Townhall.com - Printer Friendly 12/8/2009
So, the planet has had bigger temperature shifts than the one we're experiencing now. It has also been warmer
than it is today:
The...warming before our last ice age was much warmer than anything we've had since. We had a
warming that peaked 9000 years ago, another warming that peaked 5000 years ago. Both were
warmer than today. Probably the Roman warming and the medieval warming were both warmer than
today -- and we've had 8 warmings of the earth since the last Ice Age.
So how can we, given our limited knowledge of how the climate works, attribute the extremely limited amount of
warming we experienced over the last century to mankind? The honest answer is: We can't.
The earth was cooling from roughly 1940-1976: Despite the fact that widespread industrialization was
occurring during that 30 year time period, temperatures dropped so much that there were claims we were going
into a dangerous period of "global cooling." If global temperatures are tightly bound to man-made greenhouse
gasses and those gasses were being rapidly introduced to the atmosphere, then the earth should have been
warming, not cooling during that period. The obvious conclusion is that global temperatures are not nearly as
closely associated with man-made greenhouse gasses as some people would have us believe.
So, if it's global warming, why isn't there any warming occurring now? One of the many revelations from
Climategate is that behind-the-scenes, scientists who buy into man-made global warming are admitting what
skeptics have been saying publicly for years now: The globe has been cooling since 1998. Again, if global
warming has its bootlaces hitched to the amount of man-made greenhouse gasses that are being produced and
those numbers are increasing, why hasn't the temperature gone up as well? There's a simple answer: Man-made
greenhouse gasses are not a decisive factor in raising or lowering the temperature of the earth.
Climate models can't accurately project the weather 100 years in the future: The truth is that we don't fully
understand how our planet's climate works and thus, our climate models don't work very well. Since the climate
models can't explain the climate over the last 25 years and they can't explain the leveling off of temperature
since 1998, why would anyone believe they can predict conditions in 100 years? As computer programmers say,
"garbage in, garbage out."
The Doomsday predictions from global warming alarmists are absolutely meaningless because they're based on
climate models that don't work very well in the first place. As Dennis Avery, co-author of Unstoppable Global
Warming: Every 1500 Years has said:
I think they pull their predictions out of their hats and I don't think they have any validity whatsoever.
What the global warming alarmists are asking of people is no small thing. They want us to spend trillions of dollars,
dramatically impact our economies, and change the way people across the world live for the worse. Those are not
trivial changes and simply having scientists -- who've been put under enormous political pressure and make a living
off global warming grants – say, "Trust us, it's real," isn't going to cut it for proof. If global warming alarmists can't
even deliver plausible answers to the most obvious problems with their theory, then no one should take them
seriously.
__________________
"Slack" - a state of being in which everything flows smoothly.....a frame of mind so at ease that the universe naturally cooperates.
acecycleins is offline   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links Remove Advertisements
Motorcycle Forum
Advertisement
Old 12-08-2009, 09:25 AM   #52
longride
Super Duper Mod Man

 
longride's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Anywhere they let me
Posts: 10,479
Default

"Four Colossal Holes in the
Theory of Man-Made Global
Warming"

Only four? Hell, I could count about 50, and I'm not even trying.
__________________
I'm a knucklehead
longride is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2009, 12:48 PM   #53
schizuki
Founding Member
 
schizuki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,030
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenneth_Moore View Post
I suggest you listen to Rush, at least on occasion. Like it or not, he is as influential as Al is. His agenda lately is clearly anti-science, which I equate to the Dark Ages and the Inquisition.
I don't listen to Rush, so please give me one example of Rush Limbaugh being "anti-science." Seriously. What does this mean?

What exactly does Rush say that is reminiscent of (why do liberals have to be so hysterical and melodramatic?) the Dark Ages and the Inquisition? Does he advocate the burning of heretics?

If you think that opposition to the absurd theory of AGW is "anti-science", then you clearly cannot distinguish between opposition to an entire branch of knowledge and opposition to a particular group of increasingly suspect scientists.
__________________
Reverēre meam auctōritātem

Bill Clinton and Chuck Schumer are praising the Supreme Court for overturning an anti-gay-marriage law that they both signed.
schizuki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2009, 01:02 PM   #54
schizuki
Founding Member
 
schizuki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,030
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenneth_Moore View Post
You know, I hear that all the time, yet I am continually bombarded by right-wing media and pundits. It's the only thing on the radio aside from NPR, which is pretty mundane, and fundamentalist preaching, which nauseates me. There is NO liberal media in the South...aside from the internet, at all.
Oh, cry me a f***ing river. Right wing mass media consists of Fox News, A.M. talk radio, and the Wall Street Journal. You've got to try pretty goddamn hard to be "bombarded" by that, Ken.

Meanwhile, your side has CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, The New York Times, Newsweek, Time, et cetera, ad nauseum. 54% of national journalists describe themselves as “moderates” (yeah, I'd love to see their voting history) 34% as liberals, 7% as conservative.

Oh, and let's not forget PBS and NPR, which libertarians and conservatives are forced to help fund. Care to have a few cents of your income go to Fox News, Ken?

I thought your claim that Rush was channeling Torquemada was risible, but this is gobsmackingly hilarious.
__________________
Reverēre meam auctōritātem

Bill Clinton and Chuck Schumer are praising the Supreme Court for overturning an anti-gay-marriage law that they both signed.
schizuki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2009, 02:59 PM   #55
acecycleins
Founding Member
 
acecycleins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: North Georgia
Posts: 4,129
Default

Wanna know why lib radio sux, Ken? Because libs hate it when you try to get them to use logic or facts in debate. Right-wingers actually encourage libs to call their shows. They (libs) use junk science in the global warming scam. They (libs) use junk economics to explain TARP. They (libs) use OUR money for the poor, poor, pitiful poor. And what do we get in return, nothing but words. Meaningless.

Our Earth heats and cools in cycles and we may flush the atmosphere with too much crap, but they have yet to figure out if it's actually us or the Earth (our solar system) that causes warming. They take our money at the point of a gun and say that they need more even when they know they are wasting it. They prop up the poor instead of teaching them to be self-reliant.

Libs prefer the want/take method rather than the earned method. If they don't get their way they scream racism, hatred, or some thing that labels conservatives something that 90% are not.

What have libs done to improve our way of life? Well, if they'd stop spending money that'd be a start. Other than that I can't think of 1 thing that has happend in 20 yrs that didn't include Republicans having control of the House.
__________________
"Slack" - a state of being in which everything flows smoothly.....a frame of mind so at ease that the universe naturally cooperates.
acecycleins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2009, 03:20 PM   #56
longride
Super Duper Mod Man

 
longride's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Anywhere they let me
Posts: 10,479
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by schizuki View Post
I don't listen to Rush, so please give me one example of Rush Limbaugh being "anti-science." Seriously. What does this mean?

What exactly does Rush say that is reminiscent of (why do liberals have to be so hysterical and melodramatic?) the Dark Ages and the Inquisition? Does he advocate the burning of heretics?

If you think that opposition to the absurd theory of AGW is "anti-science", then you clearly cannot distinguish between opposition to an entire branch of knowledge and opposition to a particular group of increasingly suspect scientists.

I already tried to get an answer as to how Rush is anti-science and why I should be so scared at what he says. I haven't gotten any thing back yet, but maybe if we keep trying Ken can come up with SOMETHING. So far nada.
__________________
I'm a knucklehead
longride is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2009, 09:29 PM   #57
schizuki
Founding Member
 
schizuki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,030
Default

The American Physical Society (that's the physics nerds, not the physical jocks) issued a statement supporting AGW theory back in '07. Now some Limbaughvian anti-science Inquisition types are calling on them to rescind it:


One APS dissenting member is William Happer, a physicist who runs the Happer Lab at Princeton University. Another is Hal Lewis, a professor emeritus of physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara. A third is Robert Austin, another Princeton physics professor and head of a biophysics research group.

They've been circulating a letter saying: "By now everyone has heard of what has come to be known as ClimateGate, which was and is an international scientific fraud, the worst any of us have seen... We have asked the APS management to put the 2007 statement on ice until the extent to which it is tainted can be determined, but that has not been done. We have also asked that the membership be consulted on this point, but that too has not been done."


I tell ya, you don't get more Dark Ages than a Harvard physicist with a lab named after him. Those f***ers hate science. And didn't anyone tell them there's a consensus?
__________________
Reverēre meam auctōritātem

Bill Clinton and Chuck Schumer are praising the Supreme Court for overturning an anti-gay-marriage law that they both signed.
schizuki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2009, 06:25 AM   #58
longride
Super Duper Mod Man

 
longride's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Anywhere they let me
Posts: 10,479
Default

Anybody wonder why Ozone Al hasn't poked his puss on the TV lately??

'Extremely dangerous' blizzards move into Midwest | General News | Comcast.net

How's everyone enjoying the Global Warm.....err Climate Change?
__________________
I'm a knucklehead
longride is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2009, 07:38 AM   #59
Kenneth_Moore
Registered Member
 
Kenneth_Moore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: VIsiting the GIft Shop in the Pit of DIspair
Posts: 7,118
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by schizuki View Post
I don't listen to Rush, so please give me one example of Rush Limbaugh being "anti-science." Seriously. What does this mean?

What exactly does Rush say that is reminiscent of (why do liberals have to be so hysterical and melodramatic?) the Dark Ages and the Inquisition? Does he advocate the burning of heretics?

If you think that opposition to the absurd theory of AGW is "anti-science", then you clearly cannot distinguish between opposition to an entire branch of knowledge and opposition to a particular group of increasingly suspect scientists.
On his radio show, he frequently makes statements such as the one I have quoted in my signature line. He wasn't being sarcastic. In other rants, he's said that science is filled with lies and liars, and that to believe scientific data is foolish. I didn't really listen with quoting him in mind, but I will gather up some more of his crap and pass it on if you're really interested.

I am sure that much of what has been passed off as science over the centuries is utter garbage. However, I find it very alarming to see a national figure like Rush publicly denouncing science along with a huge growth in Fundamentalist Christianity. Overall, the vast majority of scientific learning and knowledge has been an enlightening force in the world, and literally brought us out of the Dark Ages.

I do not want to live in a theocracy, or a soceity that is driven by a majority religious belief. Science and religon have always been at odds; as Galileo's imprisonment for saying the Earth orbits the Sun attests. To think that our nation could becom a society little different from the theocracies of Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries is apalling.
__________________
www.kennethmoore.org
Kenneth_Moore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2009, 09:11 AM   #60
longride
Super Duper Mod Man

 
longride's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Anywhere they let me
Posts: 10,479
Default

"I am sure that much of what has been passed off as science over the centuries is utter garbage."

Then he is right, science is full of liars. Algore is a liar, yet countries around the world are going to chain themselves to his lies that are disguised as 'science'. I'm 100% sure that is what he was referring to. You just can't admit he might be right.

"I do not want to live in a theocracy, or a soceity that is driven by a majority religious belief. "

Where does he propose such a thing and what is he currently doing to make that a reality? Nothing I bet
__________________
I'm a knucklehead
longride is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off