Fear mongers... yet another article for you to ignore.

Cancel 2016.2

Cancel 2016.2

The Almighty
http://thefederalist.com/2014/02/26/the-original-sin-of-global-warming/

To his credit, Sagan admits that the science on this subject is still in its early stages—but then he makes a disastrous error.

And yet we ravage the Earth at an accelerated pace, as if it belonged to this one generation, as if it were ours to do with as we please…. Our generation must choose. Which do we value more: short-term profits or the long-term habitability of our planetary home?…

The study of the global climate, the sun’s influence, the comparison of the Earth with other worlds, these are subjects in their earliest stages of development. They are funded poorly and grudgingly, and meanwhile we continue to load the Earth’s atmosphere with materials about whose long-term influence we are almost entirely ignorant.
​
Can you see the error? Sagan enters this topic with a clear animus against the profit motive and a pre-established belief that industrial civilization is “ravaging the earth.” These are the obvious cultural biases of a late-20th-century modern liberal. So he considers two alternative theories—that we are destroying the planet by cooling it down, or we are destroying the planet by heating it up—and calls for more government funding to figure out which is correct. But his bias prevents him from seriously considering the obvious third option: that our effect on the Earth’s climate is negligible, any heating or cooling is within the normal range of natural variation, and the benefits of industrial civilization far outweigh any negative effects. But if we don’t treat this as an option, much less as an equally likely option, no government funding is likely to be devoted to pursuing that theory.



This is the original sin of the global warming theory: that it was founded in a presumption of guilt against industrial civilization. All of the billions of dollars in government research funding and the entire cultural establishment that has been built up around global warming were founded on the presumption that we already knew the conclusion—we’re “ravaging the planet”—and we’re only interested in evidence that supports that conclusion.
Click to expand...

I encourage people to read the above in its entirety at the link provided.
 
Warmers are generally biased which is why they never consider examining the science and are content to believe that science is settled just because algoreinc says so.
 
NOVA said:
Words have meaning.....to most educated people
Click to expand...


Punctuation marks do, too. .......... .. . .... . . . .. to some educated people.


What I like best about that little piece there is that instead of making an objective argument about industrialization and its impact on the environment or the actual evdince supporting antrhopogenic global warming, the author instead attacks the subjective motives of scientists. Now THAT'S science, yo.
 
aeprga said:
Punctuation marks do, too. .......... .. . .... . . . .. to some educated people.


What I like best about that little piece there is that instead of making an objective argument about industrialization and its impact on the environment or the actual evdince supporting antrhopogenic global warming, the author instead attacks the subjective motives of scientists. Now THAT'S science, yo.
Click to expand...


What punctuation marks?....did you think the spaces with little dots in them were punctuation marks ?......roflmao.
 
Celticguy said:
Warmers are generally biased which is why they never consider examining the science and are content to believe that science is settled just because algoreinc says so.
Click to expand...

Al Gore didn't say this. From the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:


  • 2013 ties with 2003 as the fourth-warmest year globally since records began in 1880.
  • The annual global combined land and ocean surface temperatures was 58.12 degrees Fahrenheit (14.52 degrees Celsius), 1.12 degrees Fahrenheit above the 20th century average (the warmest year on record is 2010, which was 1.19 degrees Fahrenheit (0.66 Celsius) above the average.
  • 2013 was the 37th consecutive year that the annual global temperature was above the average, which means that if you were born any year after 1976, you’ve never experienced a year when the global climate was average, let along cooler.
  • Including 2013, 9 of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred in the 21st century, and just one year in the 20th century—1998—was warmer than 2013.
 
aeprga said:
"little dots"
Click to expand...


Yep....this is a little dot (.)....this is a bigger dot (.)

Alone its sometimes called a period

then there are three dots, each separated by a space called ellipsis

the ellipsis is sometimes used to represent an intentional silence or in poetry, it might used to highlight sarcasm or make the reader think about the last points. Their are other uses also........

this (.......) is a series of dots, or if you desire, a series of spaces filled with dots and means nothing.

Hope that clears things up for you....next we can do dashes (-) if you like.....little lines
 
aeprga said:
So this guy doesn't believe in global warming because of Carl Sagan's word choice? Nice.
Click to expand...

He is saying that Carl Sagan didn't always practice what he preached and that AGW has turned into a religion with faith as its core belief. Anyone questioning the warming gurus are denounced as heretics. I don't how many times you have to say that science is not about consensus but more about some bloody minded person or persons pointing out the Emperor is naked.
 
christiefan915 said:
Al Gore didn't say this. From the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:


  • 2013 ties with 2003 as the fourth-warmest year globally since records began in 1880.
  • The annual global combined land and ocean surface temperatures was 58.12 degrees Fahrenheit (14.52 degrees Celsius), 1.12 degrees Fahrenheit above the 20th century average (the warmest year on record is 2010, which was 1.19 degrees Fahrenheit (0.66 Celsius) above the average.
  • 2013 was the 37th consecutive year that the annual global temperature was above the average, which means that if you were born any year after 1976, you’ve never experienced a year when the global climate was average, let along cooler.
  • Including 2013, 9 of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred in the 21st century, and just one year in the 20th century—1998—was warmer than 2013.
Click to expand...

There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years. If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states: “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20thcentury.” (My emphasis)

“Extremely likely” is not a scientific term but rather a judgment, as in a court of law. The IPCC defines “extremely likely” as a “95-100% probability”. But upon further examination it is clear that these numbers are not the result of any mathematical calculation or statistical analysis. They have been “invented” as a construct within the IPCC report to express “expert judgment”, as determined by the IPCC contributors.

These judgments are based, almost entirely, on the results of sophisticated computer models designed to predict the future of global climate. As noted by many observers, including Dr. Freeman Dyson of the Princeton Institute for Advanced Studies, a computer model is not a crystal ball. We may think it sophisticated, but we cannot predict the future with a computer model any more than we can make predictions with crystal balls, throwing bones, or by appealing to the Gods.

...ooo....

Moving closer to the present day, it is instructive to study the record of average global temperature during the past 130 years. The IPCC states that humans are the dominant cause of warming “since the mid-20th century”, which is 1950. From 1910 to 1940 there was an increase in global average temperature of 0.5°C over that 30-year period. Then there was a 30-year “pause” until 1970. This was followed by an increase of 0.57°C during the 30-year period from 1970 to 2000. Since then there has been no increase, perhaps a slight decrease, in average global temperature. This in itself tends to negate the validity of the computer models, as CO2 emissions have continued to accelerate during this time.

The increase in temperature between 1910-1940 was virtually identical to the increase between 1970-2000. Yet the IPCC does not attribute the increase from 1910- 1940 to “human influence.” They are clear in their belief that human emissions impact only the increase “since the mid-20th century”. Why does the IPCC believe that a virtually identical increase in temperature after 1950 is caused mainly by “human influence”, when it has no explanation for the nearly identical increase from 1910- 1940?

It is important to recognize, in the face of dire predictions about a 2°C rise in global average temperature, that humans are a tropical species. We evolved at the equator in a climate where freezing weather did not exist. The only reasons we can survive these cold climates are fire, clothing, and housing. It could be said that frost and ice are the enemies of life, except for those relatively few species that have evolved to adapt to freezing temperatures during this Pleistocene Ice Age. It is “extremely likely” that a warmer temperature than today’s would be far better than a cooler one.
Click to expand...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/...the-u-s-senate-on-climate-change/#more-103850
 
Last edited:
I love this kind of shit. First of all, I don't read any of this anti-science bullcrap, it's hilarious to me, like a Saturday Night Live Skit, but SNL is so 20 years ago. But "for the fear mongers, for the morons, for the idiots...who reads any further? Who says "ohhh, for the morons, that must be for me!"? Like, wtf? How about, "for go fuck yourself". How about that huh?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top