




Blogs > RebelHeart |
RebelHeart
New Zealand722 Posts
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ||
Tadzio
3340 Posts
NASA scientist Jim Hansen said after a 2005 study of climate change was completed, "There can no longer be substantial doubt that human-made gases are the cause of most observed warming.." A brief article on Crichton's "State of Fear." Fiction is great stuff, but don't take it so seriously. | ||
Butigroove
Seychelles2061 Posts
| ||
stephman
Germany11 Posts
I kinda dont believe in man made global warming caused by the "immense" overproduction of CO2 since i saw this: the full version can be found on google video | ||
XCetron
5225 Posts
| ||
Tadzio
3340 Posts
Do a little experiment. Use your stove, get a pot, create a bubbled lid for the pot (2 feet high) with a tiny hole in the top for insertion of a thermometer. The stove will be the sun, the pot the earth, and the lid will be greenhouse gases. Now put some water in the pot and turn on the stove to medium heat. Wait a bit, and place the thermometer 2 feet above the pot and get a reading on the temperature. Then put the bubbled lid on the pot, wait a bit, and take the temperature. Record the results Next put the stove's heat on high, and repeat the experiment. You should find that changing the heat-source temperature will have a much stronger correlation to the temperature of the pot's atmosphere, but that, nonetheless, the temperature is higher under the lid than when the heat is allowed an easy escape (no lid). Greenhouse gases do not create heat, and I don't think anyone argues that. Greenhouse gases trap heat. That the video explains heat increases cause the ocean to release greenhouse gases (CO2) isn't useful, unless their argument is that humans don't release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, which would be a silly argument. I got the impression that the main thrust of the video was trying to imply (without actually saying) that greenhouse gases have no greenhouse effect-- that greenhouse gases are actually a result of increased heat, and not a contributing factor to increased temperatures-- but if that's their implication, they're perfectly wrong. For example, Venus' atmosphere is 97% CO2, and it's surface temp is 480 °C at a distance from the sun of 108 million km. It is estimated that if Venus had no atmosphere, it's surface temperature would be less than 55 °C. And the same is true in Earth's case, though the difference isn't as drastic. Without greenhouse gases the Earth would probably be inhabitably cold: -18 °C (current surface temp is roughly 15 °C, but rising). So, yeah, no duh. The sun is the biggest contributing factor for temperature. Take away the sun altogether and both Venus and Earth would probably begin to approach absolute 0 (or –273.15 °C) with or without an atmosphere (the atmosphere would of course freeze... but ignoring that). The argument in the video is a moot point. Discounting the potential dangers of increased greenhouse gases by ignoring the effects of greenhouse gases and just talking about the sun isn't a useful position. A useful position would be to demonstrate that either 1) greenhouse gases don't cause a greenhouse effect (impossible, since it's plain that they do), or, failing that, 2) that human activities do not contribute substantially to any increase in greenhouse gases. Number 2 can be argued, I think. But more and more scientific evidence is supporting the consensus belief that human contribution is having a significant effect. | ||
HappyFeetO_O
China350 Posts
| ||
Physician
![]()
United States4146 Posts
Your comment is unfortunately one more example of why things will not change unless we start to "feel" the consequences of our actions rather than taking the effort of "thinking" about them, predicting them accurately and taking appropriate action. It is amazing too how far the propaganda of the energy cartel has reached, how prevalent it is and worse of all, how effective it is. "most people who try to argue against global warming objectively as if they're taking into account the other side's position don't really have a clue what they're talking about and seem to dodge the issue, being fence sitters" - RebelHeart You got that part right. | ||
Klaz
Ireland334 Posts
idiots like this are the reason behind most of the problems in the world today. Head in the sand morons that don't care what happens as long as it doesn't personally affect them. referring to op in case anyone was wondering. | ||
Wizard
Poland5055 Posts
| ||
RebelHeart
New Zealand722 Posts
On July 06 2007 08:00 HappyFeetO_O wrote: Why don't you try reading Crichton's lengthy notes in the back of the book before taking such an idiotic stance regarding the "global warming psychos" i did read them dumbass that's why in my OP i wrote that he was good at attacking Left wing greenies from an "objective" point of view. what i'm saying is many of the environmentalist arguments used in the (albeit fiction) novel are the ones that they use today in everyday conversations, with little regard to facts and background, such as the ineffectiveness of the Kyoto Protocol etc. it's a good book because it tells those sort of Lefties to STFU (as opposed to say, scientists that believe in global warming and back it up with research etc. as opposed to idiot Greenpeace members who think they're the shit and chant political slogans such as "what are you doing about it?" and try to guilt trip you and think they know the issue inside out) and if you read the notes at the back of the book you'll see that he spent three years studying scientists' reports and reading about the issue in depth, so it goes to show how ignorant people who instantly assume that because he was appointed by the Republicans he must therefore not know anything about global warming | ||
RebelHeart
New Zealand722 Posts
On July 06 2007 09:51 Klaz wrote: Appointed by the Bush administration? lol what a joke. Nothing they say has any credability anyway. idiots like this are the reason behind most of the problems in the world today. Head in the sand morons that don't care what happens as long as it doesn't personally affect them. referring to op in case anyone was wondering. fool, you accuse me of exactly what you just did by immediately disregarding anything Right-wing | ||
Klaz
Ireland334 Posts
I immediately disagree with this nonsense you spurt about global warming from a clearly partisan source (having worked in the bush administration). A pannel of over a thousand scientists compiled the most extensive report on the subject earlier this year, a report accepted by everyone (including the Bush government), which says unequivacly that it exists and it is man-made. So unless you can provide an arguement of equal or greater scientific credential, it doesn't matter what you say. He spend 3 years reading what scientists say? big fucking woop, it takes 4 fucking years just to get a BASIC science degree. | ||
RebelHeart
New Zealand722 Posts
| ||
Tadzio
3340 Posts
Good grief, whatta douche. If you wanna live in a fantasy world and say "global warming doesn't exist and anyone that says it does is a lying asshole", fine. You'll be ignoring a mountain of evidence to come to that conclusion, but maybe you trust personal, localized observation over observation of evidence reported by scientists around the world. At least its a position. If you have the belief that "humans can't do anything about the global warming problem, so enviromentalists should stfu" then fine, I might disagree, but at least its a position. If you have no strong belief about it one way or another and are just tired of people talking about it, maybe you should consider sticking your head in the sand and let the grownups deal with the problem. I gotta tell ya, if there was no money to be made in selling atmospheric pollutants, this wouldn't even be given a second thought. People would look at the evidence, conclude the obvious, and do what they could to stop releasing greenhouse gases. "Ignorant global warming doomsayers" wouldn't even have to say anything. Maybe you should direct your outrage about the global warming argument towards the businessmen and state-planners that ignore facts, evidence and popular political actions by fellow citizens and constituencies so they can pursue personal wealth. Afterall, if it weren't for them the environmentalists wouldn't have anything to complain about. | ||
RebelHeart
New Zealand722 Posts
see, you're exactly the kind of idiot global warming psycho referred to in the book. you don't even have any idea of what my position on global warming is, yet you assume that i've stuck my head in the sand, and then go on to give the usual "people who are against global warming are just greedy capitalists" diatribe and that they are the sole reason progress isn't being made on dealing with the environment. if you're so passionate about it read the book and deal with the arguments made in that book, rather than the usual ad homien attacks and unclear "stop releasing greenhouse gases" answer that socialist greenies like you give (as if it was that simple - without more details you're pretty much saying the solution is to ban cars and farming) | ||
Tadzio
3340 Posts
In your haste to insult me you just end up sounding stupid. did you feel like [Crichton] stated the case against global warming intellectually and objectively? No. | ||
Physician
![]()
United States4146 Posts
After all he writes to sell books and on top of it is a spokesman for the Bush administration (and on something that is not his field of work in the first place nor does he have any environmental training or research.. kind of reminds me of "Brownie" and Katrina..albeit a vastly better and more imaginative choice this time) A polemical book on this subject will only sell more - specially in view that there have been millions spent already to propagate and promote anti-global warming propaganda to the degree that even the term has been redefined as "climate change". That name change alone, so prevalent today, should raise your suspicion on about vested interests playing a huge roll in these arguments. Crichton is just riding a free wave and getting a chance to rub elbows during dinner with the current administration. We both know it will benefit him. Remember Arnold Schwarzenegger's sport ambassador experience for the Bush administration? Just look at his political career, that was one his early steps. Benefits and interests indeed. Don't you think these are few reasons to have very solid vested interests no? If you do then you must question his objectiveness and its veracity of his opinions contemplating this issue alone. Note too that the main activists against global warming, i.e the ones that have put most money into it, has been the energy cartel themselves - pretty much on their own. Would you not say they have incredible vested interests too? On the other hand those worried about global warming in the past had only to gain intentional ridicule and attempts to discredit their reputation by the above vested interest groups. This has happened for over 50 years and has only recently changed. This has been due to the ever increasing supporting evidence and research, voices of reason, on the issue that even make the ultimate unbelievers change their own position on the issue. Yes even the Bush administration. The climate-controlled White House has officially stated this year that "Beginning in June 2001, President Bush has consistently acknowledged climate change is occurring and humans are contributing to the problem." Open Letter on the President's Position on Climate Change http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/02/20070207-5.html Check the other quotes. Unfortunately politicians often say much and do little, promise much and never deliver etc.. Rebelheart, not even you will be immune to reality. It will be in your life time RebelHeart - you won't have to read or use your brain to see reason about it either, your five senses alone will do. | ||
RebelHeart
New Zealand722 Posts
basically, here are views which reflect mine so people don't go assuming that just because i wrote a post attacking the 'average' global warming activist/Greenpeace member i am somehow a denier Link and it just reflects the point made by Crichton - that like the recent Earth Aid concert in Sydney hosted by Gore, the majority of angry protesters who hate capitalism are just your average ignorant teenager who have never read a full article on global warming before, but think they're so righteous and noble and that anyone who dares to question the validity of global warming (and by question i mean merely ask to make sure the calculations have been done correctly etc. in order to get the most accurate result) to be evil and big industry supporters it's become a religion where its followers attack anyone who questions it (even if the questioners themselves believe it, but merely want to take a more cautious approach to dealing with the problem). and that's exactly what Crichton's book is about - telling those people just how ignorant they are. he says in the end notes that he believes humans are the cause of the increase in CO2, and recognises that there is no simple solution to it. whether or not you agree with that is another argument, but the point i'm making is the people who can't even have an informed debate about it and can't hear a single criticism of it are no better than religious types who kick people out of their Churches for asking "why are there dinosaur bones if the world is only 6000 years old" and tell them that they're of the Devil, when in reality they know fuck all about the issue (never having studied creation v evolution beyond what they heard from the crowd and assumed that they had the only right position and that anyone else is evil and must be a denier of God's love or whatever) Edit: an example showing why global warming fundamentalism with ignorance is bad - it's like the Da Vinci Code, but the majority of the members of the anti-capitalist Left-wing environmentalists (ie. teenagers who think it's cool to be a hippie) are very badly informed yet more religious and dedicated to silencing those who oppose (or merely question and want to study further) the cause than the Albino, and a lot easier agitated + Show Spoiler + Throughout history scientists have stood firm in their search for the truth. Many, like Galileo, were persecuted for doing so. But their courage and determination to uncover facts and ignore the political interests of the day has played a role in the march of human progress. The British philosopher Thomas Huxley describes the single-minded quest for answers that is at the heart of the scientific method stating: “The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority as such. For him, scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the unpardonable one”. Yet as you read this column, blind faith and the pursuit of populism have become dominant forces in the environmental debate to the point where politicians from all sides of our Parliament have embraced the junk science that is brainwashing people into thinking that the end of the world is upon us, that is, if we do not trust their judgement. The late – and very sadly missed – climatologist Prof Augie Auer, in a column written for the NZ Centre for Political Research earlier this year expressed it in this way: “What a wonderfully powerful human trait is the imagination. No other form of animal life can think creatively as we humans…to dream up scenarios of passion…love, joy, hatred, anticipation. But distort our imaginative powers with a bit of fear and guilt instilled by mischievous science…and presto, you have the makings of the catastrophic global warming [ooops, I’m sorry], I mean, climate change hysteria”. He then explained that the United Nations Climate Change Panel – a political, not scientific body - has exacerbated what amounts to a massive fraud by its reckless use of computer modelling which it then presents as fact: “Every one of the outcomes predicated on present and continued burning of fossil fuels by mankind are projections generated by computer simulations of future climatic patterns. They are not reality, not certainty, rather a kind of computer imagination. And even with all the mathematical manipulations, the climate models are only as good as the knowledge that is imputed to them. And as much as we would like to think that our knowledge of all atmospheric processes is substantial, the fact is it’s grossly lacking in both scope and thoroughness especially when it comes to looking decades into the future. This means that high levels of accuracy and certainty just can’t be achieved. Sometimes computer models can’t predict our local weather with useful certainty just 48 hours in advance”. Augie knew that “because of the dominance of a simple, Earth–unique gas, water vapour, we could say that mankind could not alter our climate if we wanted to!” He firmly believed that “since carbon dioxide is not the problem, there is no need for any mandatory reduction of planetary CO2 or punitive taxations to prevent its use”. And he concluded: “Scientists have an ethical responsibility to be truthful in their research, to avoid being arrogant, intimating & intolerant. This is not intended as a criticism of all those involved in climate research, but it is directed in some regard to politicians & policymakers who, in interpreting the ‘science’, tell us ‘You have a problem, we can solve it & no other opinion matters’”. (to read Augie’s article, click here>>>) Sadly, at the time of his death, the truth about the great global climate change swindle – to use the title of the excellent UK Channel4 documentary (click to view>>>) - had still not been exposed. The problem we face as a nation is that our leadership has embraced radical environmentalism with religious faith. Under the guise of an “earth-is-first” philosophy, vicious trade barriers being erected against us un-opposed, and the rewards of our modern society -that we should be permitted to enjoy without guilt - are being touted as sinful. As British Scientist John Brignell, in an excellent article “Global Warming as Religion and not Science” puts it: “No one has bettered Menken’s definition of Puritanism – the haunting fear that someone somewhere may be happy. It is an unfortunate characteristic of many varieties of religion that this characteristic is to the fore and Global Warming is far from being an exception. Nothing the proponents offer involve an improvement or even maintenance of human contentment, quite the opposite in fact. You might think that any philosophy of life would involve swings and roundabout, good and bad, but think again. Virtually everything you enjoy now is sinful – holidays, driving your car, having a comfortable temperature in your home, being free from the stink of rotting garbage, and on and on.” (To read the article click here>>>) Even as you read this column, European tourists are being advised against long distance air travel to places like New Zealand because of the carbon omissions. The wine industry is presently being threatened by new “food mile” sanctions, but this is only the beginning. Soon this new form of trade barrier may be applied to all of our exports - meat, dairy, wool, horticulture …everything. With such massive trade sanctions just around the corner, New Zealand does not need politicians who are playing the populist global warming game. We need leaders with the courage to challenge the junk science that underpins the climate change propaganda in the same way that the President of Czechoslovakia is doing. President Vaclav Klaus believes that global warming is a socialist construct that is now being used as a powerful weapon to undermine freedom: “As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism. This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning. The environmentalists ask for immediate political action because they do not believe in the long-term positive impact of economic growth and ignore both the technological progress that future generations will undoubtedly enjoy, and the proven fact that the higher the wealth of society, the higher is the quality of the environment”. (See “Freedom, Not Climate, is at Risk” by Vaclav Klaus. (View >>>) He goes on to say: “Global warming is a myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it’s a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It’s neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment. This is clearly such an incredible failure of so many people, from journalists to politicians. World renowned British conservationist Professor David Bellamy, who is this week’s NZ Centre for Political Research’s guest commentator, is hugely concerned about the global warming bandwagon: “Am I worried about carbon induced global warming? The answer is no and yes. No because there has been no sign of global warming in New Zealand since 1955, this year snow has fallen in Portugal for the first time in 52 years and 3 US states are united by the fact that they have recorded their lowest temperatures ever. Yes because it has become a political football that has lost its foundations in real science”. While David totally rejects the false myth of global warming, he is a committed conservationist who recognises the enormous challenges that we face and the important leadership role – and difference - that our government can take in these areas: “New Zealand leads the world in the eradication of feral plants and animals making restoration of the natural ecosystems that kept the biosphere in balance long before the IPCC was invented. Habitat destruction and the loss of biodiversity is one of the greatest threats to climate and landscape stability. I beg your government to continue to lead the world in this sustainable endeavour”. (To read David’s opinion piece click >>>) Global warmers have created a vast new vested-interest machine with their climate change construct. Business and industry have not been slow to take advantage of the opportunities and many scientific institutions are jumping on the bandwagon to get their hands on the lavish grants that are now available. Meanwhile, research into solar activity is ignored even though it is clearly the key driver of climate since - if the sun stopped shining the earth’s temperature would fall towards absolute zero and all of man’s climate change efforts would be exposed as inconsequential. - Muriel Newman, www.nzcpr.com | ||
Physician
![]()
United States4146 Posts
I for one, welcome the change. I rather have global warming "fundamentalism" rather than the opposite, which is what we have had the last 50 years - a lot of ignorant people, media included, denying global warming issues while smart business men have been encouraging this denial with a lot of misinformation, buying off politicians and even some scientists to protect their investments. Why to I prefer this? Because of a critical difference between your view and mine. You still see "global warming as a theory". I don't. I see it as a certainty that we are doing absolutely nothing about. Science has proven it is occurring without a doubt (just check all of NASA satellite measurements and research - an old thread of mine has the links). Science has proven we are going off our historical* temperature cycles because of our doing (just look at atmospheric co2 measurements, they are way over any historical record, and rising like never before - and even comparing it with other levels all the way back to our first recorded ice age). *going back 400,000 years thanks to ice studies. Science has also proven why its happening. Co2 is a green house gas, and more of it has and will invariably mean that the planet earth will retain ever more heat from solar radiation - whatever number of solar flares are out there, the rising co2 levels beyond natures past limits, will only amplify the heating problem. So as far as I am concerned - the more "pycho" "greenies" "lefties" there are beating drums and crying impreding doom - the better. It might not mean much to you, it might even annoy you or pull you out of your comfort zone, but at least they are trying to raise the awareness on importance of the issue. It definitively makes it harder for the energy cartel to deny the problem. This might explain why your title, "STFU you global warming psychos", has evoked the merited reactions. It is simply more of the same; in the same line of what you attribute as annoying to you. | ||
| ||
![]() StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Hyuk Dota 2![]() Pusan ![]() actioN ![]() Harstem ![]() Jaedong ![]() ZerO ![]() Hyun ![]() NaDa ![]() Sharp ![]() Mini ![]() [ Show more ] League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games singsing1194 B2W.Neo352 DeMusliM320 Happy309 Pyrionflax273 XaKoH ![]() ArmadaUGS182 SortOf162 Fuzer ![]() Dewaltoss28 ZerO(Twitch)16 Organizations Dota 2 StarCraft: Brood War Other Games StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War
StarCraft 2 • Berry_CruncH264 StarCraft: Brood War• AfreecaTV YouTube • intothetv ![]() • Kozan • IndyKCrew ![]() • LaughNgamezSOOP • Migwel ![]() • sooper7s League of Legends |
Code For Giants Cup
Online Event
HupCup
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
The PondCast
SOOP
Dark vs MaxPax
PiG Sty Festival
Serral vs MaxPax
ByuN vs Clem
PiG Sty Festival
herO vs Zoun
Classic vs SHIN
[BSL 2025] Weekly
Online Event
[ Show More ] PiG Sty Festival
Sparkling Tuna Cup
|
|