An alternative viepoint on Global Warming

[Deschanel]

I'm just having a laugh here- "Clinton going ballistic" over that smarmy little shit Chris Wallace's insinuations. He put that little bitch in his place, and asked him why FOX never goes after Bush & Co. for their multiple failures and STATED INDIFFERENCE to ever capturing Bin Laden. Superb.

By the way, "Ali G", or as you spell it, "alig"- Sasha Baron Cohen called, and he wants you to know that even HE considers Ali G an utterly beaten to the ground dead horse from Ye Olde 1999.

NP: "That Joke's Not Funny Anymore"

[gregf]

Hi AliG,

“No critiqoue of the science but just smear campaigns “

Well, I deliberatley did not comment on the science and only pointed out where he is funded.

“threatening to cut off funding and his career “

Amazing. The climate scientist here have been silenced by the government who is
controlled by the coal industry for 10 years. Under threat of legal action if they speak
on GW and having their funding cut off, they have mostly left the country. Total corruption.
Yet you accuse the GW lobby of threatening scientists. Amazing.

“You simply google and paste the info you gather from pro GW sources and that's it.”

Somewhat true. So do you. To avoid this accusation I mainly rely on Wikipedia as a
middle of the road source. So I try to be fair. Do you ?

“I don't know how you can say they (the cigarette companies) were lying to anybody “

“You tell me you're not leftwing but you are obviously a socialist. “

I believe in market forces, users pays, reward for hard work and taking responsibility.
I don't remember advocating a centralised Marxist economy anywhere.

The carbon industry is using government to distort the market place into an
unfair playing field rather than adapting. That is not competition, it is corruption.

I believe corporations must be governed and operate in an environment of social responsibility.
That is hardly Marxism. The suggestion is more like McCarthyism.

“Instead, they would cost billions and achieve virtually nothing. But they would slow down economic growth and cause unemployment and upheavals “

Don't be so sure. GM is close to having fuel cell and hybrid vehicles. So in a year or two's time,
when GM wants us all to buy new cars, i wonder how quickly the anti GW lobby will evaporate.

“And I'm glad it stirred controversy... “

Agreed a good topic.

If your doco is found to be true I will admit to being wrong about GW.
If the doco is discredited, would you agree to accept GW ?

BTW I sat thru all 90? minutes of your ..er.. doco at the computer. Dont say I am not fair.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...

Danny is correct. GW theory predicts more extremes of weather. Also the North Atlantic currents
may reverse leaving the USA under a glacier. Will you compensate us for that ?

[alig]

Okay, since there is no way you're gonna change your mind, let me put it that way:

Manmade GW proponents changed their tack from GW to the all-encompassing Climate Change scenario to cover all kinds of weathers and climates. They have all their bases covered. Thus, a theory that is validated by ANY outcome is not verifiable or falsifiable and thus unscientific. So suppose we did all we could to reduce CO2, at WHAT POINT EXACTLY would they come to the conclusion that we have stopped CC? How could they in the first place? Because we know that CC has always been happening and always will be. So the notion of static climate as the ideal outcome is the most fanciful and unrealistic idea imaginable. So they are preaching a state that could never happen or be verified in reality. So how can you support an outcome that is self-contradictory and never gonna happen? Climate has always changed and always will be and the more you think about how the ideal outcome of CC policies is impossible the more it seems like a Judgment Day scenario straight out of the Bible postponed ad nauseam. So since there is no falsifiable outcome in AGW, the whole theory is unscientific. But it has all the features of an ersatz-religion.
And what's the latest fad coming out of the politicians' mouth? Outlawing conventional light bulbs? Even though in some cases they make more sense? And banning stand-by on electric devices? What about VCRs? What about people leaving the tv on all the time instead of turning it off? And why should any politician tell me how to use my tv? What next? A limit on the number of toilet flushes per day? Do you really want them to control your entire life? I don't.

[alig]

To Americans, the Risks of Global Warming Are Not Imminent:

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=26842

From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/scien ... ref=slogin

[glennjridge]

If you understood the first thing about Global Warming*, you'd know that it doesn't mean that everywhere is going to get warmer and be warmer all the time.

An example: Britain may well get colder as the course of the Gulf Stream is altered.

see, you guys are your own worst enemys. really then, whats all the hub bub about if the global warming trend really isnt a consistent warm all the time. you arent explaining yourselves properly.

cripes sake if its all going to be random freezing/hot/freezing/hot climates just like always then maybe you will understand why people are so divided into these camps.

I'm at the point now I really dont care. because in the end, if its as bad as they say it is,what with polar bears losing their habitat,what will a couple countrys signing a slip of paper going to do when fossil fuel and industry is going to be here for the forseeable future. the alternative is a long ways off realistically.

alot of these places are already regulated in regards to emissions.

[Danny C]

see, you guys are your own worst enemys. really then, whats all the hub bub about if the global warming trend really isnt a consistent warm all the time. you arent explaining yourselves properly.

what

No, seriously, WHAT?

If you've read anything about Global Warming (and you surely must have, right, since you're so vehemently opposed to it?), you'd know it's not as simple as "Earth gets hotter".

Yes, the average global temperature will increase, but it's not a consistent increase over the whole planet, nor does it mean it will always be warmer than it would have been; extremes of temperature will be more common at both ends of the scale.

cripes sake if its all going to be random freezing/hot/freezing/hot climates just like always then maybe you will understand why people are so divided into these camps.

Yeah, I understand that a lot of people can't be bothered to educate themselves, which is why they're so keen to swallow bullshit from Holocau... Global Warming deniers.

I'm at the point now I really dont care. because in the end, if its as bad as they say it is,what with polar bears losing their habitat,what will a couple countrys signing a slip of paper going to do when fossil fuel and industry is going to be here for the forseeable future.

Because we can actually change things with a concerted global effort? We managed to pretty much eradicate CFCs, and now the Ozone layer is predicted to recover by the middle of the century.

the alternative is a long ways off realistically.

No, not really. All it needs is political will.

[gregf]

Hi AliGlen,

I agree. Climate is all ways changing, but now its hundreds times faster than normal.

Outlawing light bulbs started here in Oz. Our Neo-Con coal mining government is in
panic mode because they realise it's true. So that is their pathetic reaction.

They want us to forget they spent the last decade destroying all renewable energy
development here. Ten lost years at such a critical time. It's a crime.

I heard BBC say UK will ban stand-by. Now that does get me cross.

“What next? A limit on the number of toilet flushes per day? “

Much of Oz is already at this point, out of necessity. The dams are empty and the rivers are dry.
Not 10 years from now. Already happening, already happening.

Sigh. Actually I can understand you guys not being interested when the house is buried in snow.
That's the way humans are.

Oh Glen, did you really say we are not explaining our selves. CLICK HERE

[Fugitive1979]

I heard BBC say UK will ban stand-by. Now that does get me cross.

It's about time. Stand-by uses almost as much electricity as switched-on. The only good it does is save lazy people from having to bend over and flick a switch!

[alig]

Climate is NOT getting warmer a hundred times faster than normal! it warmed roughly 0.6C in the past decades. There were phases where we had a lot steeper temperature shifts. Like I told you before, the GW theory is so fuzzy that is can never be falsified. It's a religion and has all the features of it. What is the normal climate? There is none as it's always been changing. Droughts, floods, blizzards have always been there. At what point would you say the climate has become clement? When there will be no natural disasters anymore? It's never gonna happen, no matter how much CO2 you save. So stop worrying about a bogus religion and enjoy life. So many so called liberals
know so much that they have no common sense.
As for the stand-by: You know what people would be doing instead? they'd be leaving the cd player on after pushing the stop button, or they'd be leaving the telly on with the sound muted. A good example for politicians with no common sense.

[Fugitive1979]

As for the stand-by: You know what people would be doing instead? they'd be leaving the cd player on after pushing the stop button, or they'd be leaving the telly on with the sound muted.

Hopefully, then people would realise that they are still using electricity and switch off - if only to save money. There's a good chance they would probably worry about their wallet more than the environmental consequences!

[Danny C]

It's a religion and has all the features of it.

Absolute codswallop. For one thing, religious beliefs are held in the face of significant contrary evidence. That's why they require faith. On the other hand, it doesn't require much faith to believe that the overwhelming scientific consensus is correct.

In fact, it's your denial of a very real and very observable threat backed up by mountains of scientific evidence that shows some of the hallmarks of religious faith.

[alig]

As for the stand-by: You know what people would be doing instead? they'd be leaving the cd player on after pushing the stop button, or they'd be leaving the telly on with the sound muted.

Hopefully, then people would realise that they are still using electricity and switch off - if only to save money. There's a good chance they would probably worry about their wallet more than the environmental consequences!

Who would be feeling it in their wallet? The low incomers. The rich wouldn't be giving a damn.
If someone gives you a call whilst you're listening to a cd, how many times before you're fed up with switching the entire system off for a short call and you start keeping it on pause and stop instead? Believe me, us humans are too damn lazy.

[alig]

So much for the Prius hybrid car and yet another fallacy exposed:

Prius Outdoes Hummer in Environmental Damage

http://clubs.ccsu.edu/recorder/editoria ... NewsID=188

[gregf]

Hi AliG.

I hope you understand, I try to be fair. I read your links. I sat at the computer for a
hour or more to watch your doco.

The report on the Prius, like some others, is feasible. But i cannot comment as I am no expert.
So I just want you to know : That 'no reply' does not mean disbelief.

However, civilised "men of letters" must be open minded on both sides.
Otherwise converstation just breaks down.

Just to explain why I am the way I am.

I am trained in problem solving, like the air crash investigators. Ignore emotion and salesmen,
examine data, distrust assumptions, propose theory, ignore emotion, retest theory until
all evidence is explained. Provide solution regardless of politics.
It's a nice clear way to be.

[Danny C]

I sat at the computer for a hour or more to watch your doco.

Dude, seriously, why waste your life like that.

Shoulda just read these articles on the documentary instead:

http://news.independent.co.uk/environme ... 347526.ece
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... 75,00.html
http://news.independent.co.uk/environme ... 355956.ece