Greenpeace co-founder: No scientific evidence of man-made global warming

reply to post by CharlieSpeirs


No problem..I sometimes get rather excited when discussing stuff I am interested in

I guess that given what I have seen from the scientific community that once you factor out the biased BS I arrive at the opinion (with a great deal of surety) that we do not know enough about climate science at yet to even formulate a working theory that is sufficient to make semi accurate predictions with.

And yet, given that, people insist on doing it anyway.

Given that, we insist that we can make a change, and damn the consequences (well, they don't say that, but I often experience the law of unintended consequences).

Personally, given that climate change is a constant, would we prefer to get warmer or colder? The beginning of the current ice age almost wiped out humanity. I prefer warmer than colder if there is to be change, because we certainly do not know enough to maintain our current status. Man vs world...who wins?

reply to post by bbracken677

Personally, given that climate change is a constant, would we prefer to get warmer or colder? The beginning of the current ice age almost wiped out humanity. I prefer warmer than colder if there is to be change, because we certainly do not know enough to maintain our current status. Man vs world...who wins?

Heaven forbid you should join the ranks of those who advocate anticipating change, and adapting to it as best we can. Bjorn Lomborg has been forced into a form of exile due to his adherence to such beliefs.

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.

That brings us to where we are today. The establishment’s approach to the scientific debate over global warming is to declare that no such debate exists—and to ruthlessly stamp it out if anyone tries to start one.

The Original Sin of Global Warming

CharlieSpeirs
reply to post by jdub297

 

My president & God...???
I have neither of those things you mentioned!!!
Try again!!!

Your avatar says you're a "grand mason," thus you have both; you dissemble to no avail.

97% of climate change scientists actually disagree with your rhetoric!!!

No, they don't.
Oreskes' "study" and subsequent survey have been so thoroughly discredited, they are only cited today by alarmists who ignore facts in favor of hyperbole. Even Jones, Hansen and Trenberth agree that the only "consensus" is that the Earth has warmed and that man has contributed. This is the same Naomi Oreskes who now advocates for RICO prosecution and imprisonment for anyone who dissents from her imaginary catastrophic AGW "consensus."

If this is your first line of support, you failed.

The Original Sin of Global Warming

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.

That brings us to where we are today. The establishment’s approach to the scientific debate over global warming is to declare that no such debate exists—and to ruthlessly stamp it out if anyone tries to start one.

thefederalist.com...

We are not significant; we cannot permanently alter the climate.

jw

reply to post by jdub297


I also say "like Matt Groening" so that it would rhyme... However I'm not sure if he is, and I am certain that I am not!!!
If you believe everything you read within Avatars that's up to you, but I wouldn't base my arguments on such!!!
Alas, I have neither, try again!


It's fair to say a large amount of scientists are more sceptical of mans involvement surpassing natures, that wasn't my argument nor was I denying it, or disagreeing... But I won't ignore mans involvement just because it hasn't been as prominent.
What we have done and our affect is all that we can change to help this situation, we cannot change what nature is doing, so let's deal with what we can and look at those aspects instead of hypothetical natural elements that we have no bearing on!!!


As for significance, we are only insignificant on a Universal scale...
When it comes to Earth we are the most significant of all!!!


Peace!

reply to post by bbracken677


It's debatable but the overwhelming evidence is that man is accelerating warming dramatically. The only people who are denying the evidence are big money, big energy groups and the sheep(who only listen to rush liar limbaugh and watch fox not news) they can convince.


So go ahead and debate away until your cars and coal power plants are 10 feet under water.

Man isnt causing global warming ?Everybody knows that.
the guy thst invented the internet believes in global warming &hes an idiot lol

fripw
So go ahead and debate away until your cars and coal power plants are 10 feet under water.

According to Manbearpig that was supposed to have happened already.

Did you ever stop to think that his histrionics, hypocrisy and false predictions could be the cause of some people's skepticism?

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus

Did you ever stop to think that his histrionics, hypocrisy and false predictions could be the cause of some people's skepticism?

This got me thinking about what brought about my own skeptism a number of years ago...

At first, I believed in what these scientists were saying because a lot of the science made sense (and still does). But as I started digging deeper and came to realize that there is a ton of missing science (particularly astrophysics) and/or mechanisms that are being completely ignored., that's when I raised an eyebrow.

Follow that with all the other garbage that's now gone on over these past 10+ years (failed predictions, deviant behaviour, failure of replication and/or falsification of data, failure of data validation, homogenization to the point of complete loss of original data, failure of open disclosure, the political arena, ridiculous assertions and statements, hyperbolic assumptions, etc etc)...

And well, the rest is history.

The missing science is what bothers me the most though.

Absolutely everything on the planet and in the universe is various forms of neverending energy exchanges, transfers, and fluctuations. Everything. Even the slightest energy variation coming from one source or other, can make an influential impact somewhere along the line. It's all one big causal link.

And for climatology to ignore that very important aspect of physical mechanisms to complete a picture as a whole, bothers me to no end. As far as I'm concerned, it's incomplete science... a failure right from the get-go.

In another thread, I had a poster ask me, for example, what the hell solar radio flux and/or UV irradiance had to do with our planet's climate... and I thought to myself, "Really ?? You're actually asking this question ?"

At this point, I just can't be bothered anymore. I give up.



/rant

Science this science that. Science can take a shot in the dark and get closer than it did yesterday but it is always going to be off the bulls eye. No matter which side you take, applying science is just providing a temporal and limited understanding.

This looks like an argument from authority fallacy to me. What am I missing?

fripw
reply to post by bbracken677

 

It's debatable but the overwhelming evidence is that man is accelerating warming dramatically. The only people who are denying the evidence are big money, big energy groups and the sheep(who only listen to rush liar limbaugh and watch fox not news) they can convince.


So go ahead and debate away until your cars and coal power plants are 10 feet under water.

First off...the water wont be rising over night, and coal plants in the US are being closed down.

Overwhelming evidence except that the science is far from complete. While I have no doubts that we are having an effect, I question the degree. Aerosols that just a few years ago were thought to be greenhouse in effect are now thought to have the opposite affect. They do, however contribute more towards the climate change aspect regarding shifting rain and storm patterns.

Overwhelming evidence except that the science used that says that could not predict the last 17 years and hence as a theory (current climate models) it fails, since that is part of the process of scientific theory. Create a theory from hypothesis based on sound observation and data. Test the theory...in this case by making predictions...predictions which did not pan out. So, back to the drawing board.

reply to post by bbracken677

What makes you think we can actually do anything to stop it? The tundra is thawing and releasing tons of methane into the atmosphere. There is no counter to that.

It's not like we can all just turn on our A/Cs and open windows so we can cool the planet down lol

OH...perhaps we can replace the earth's batteries and recharge our weakening magnetic field? 15% reduction in the field over the last 200 years. Think about that for 2 seconds.

Perhaps we can even initiate a few volcanic eruptions...that would block some sunlight.

This is old but I just saw your response and I felt I needed to answer.

I am not ignorant enough to believe that it would be a simple fix. I am not ignorant enough to believe that there exists a "fix" out there. But changing habits that we believe are harmful to our environment would not hurt anyone anyway.

I'm from North Carolina. Did you hear what 20 of our coastal counties did when informed that it might not be a great idea to build some condo's near the coastline because of rising sea levels? A group called NC-20 put together a proposed bill that would only allow us to determine future sea level lines based on *historical* data. Not current science, and especially not science that proposed accelerated sea level rise...but history.

And this bill wasn't just proposed. It was passed. Despite current scientific data predicting that sea levels along our coastline could rise three meters within the next century - which is a HUGE number, especially considering that much of our coastline is only 5 feet above sea level in the first place (Coastal map)- that based on historical evidence of storm activity, we think the rise will be more like one meter. So...all of the coastal bridges, condos, hotels, and infrastructure under construction are being built with the one meter rule in place.

And wouldn't you know it...since being passed, our coastline is one of the fastest rising coastlines in the world, currently

accelerated to between 2 and 3.7 millimetres per year. That is three to four times the global average, and it means the coast could see 20–29 centimetres of sea-level rise on top of the metre predicted for the world as a whole by 2100 ( A. H. Sallenger Jr et al. Nature Clim. Change doi.org...; 2012).

Whether there is anything we can or cannot do about climate change, there are some things we can DEFINITELY do about our reaction to climate change. And bickering over why it's happening isn't helpful.

Science has become a religion based on metaphorical assumptions.
Heresy will not be tolerated.
The church needs a shakeup, that's for sure.

Remember, Roundup is safe for people and pets.
Vioxx has no deadly side effects
yada yada yada

It's a natural process. Humans in reality can do very little to stop it. They can, however, speed it up or slow it down. The government just wants to have one more reason why to make everyone a slave. Just ignore it.