climatologist mann cleared of misconduct charges - Page 4

On July 05 2010 01:57 Helios.Star wrote:


No, you're thinking of Payton and Eli Manning. Michael Mann was one of the names Mick Foley used to wrestle under.

On July 05 2010 01:58 dcberkeley wrote:

No, you're thinking of Mankind. Michael Mann is the protagonist of the video game, Grim Fandango.

On July 05 2010 04:18 De4ngus wrote:
Lol, what's the worst case scenario if global warming is false anyway?

Oh no, we spent some money cleaning up and making the world a better place!

On July 05 2010 04:34 Jerubaal wrote:


Because most high profile environmentalists are using it as a cover to spread their marxist philosophy.

On July 04 2010 19:33 brain_ wrote:
The thought that we can drive hybrids and thereby keep the Earth in stasis is a prime example of human arrogance.

On July 05 2010 04:18 De4ngus wrote:
Lol, what's the worst case scenario if global warming is false anyway?

Oh no, we spent some money cleaning up and making the world a better place!

On July 05 2010 07:24 sluggaslamoo wrote:
The "so called scientists" are actually scientists.

Also there is a big difference between how science is substantiated and how religion is substantiated, the main one being that if science was done in a religious fashion, every single scientist would be a heretic.

On July 05 2010 06:03 .zch wrote:



Wait, wait, wait, wait... and the thought that we can emit literally billions of tons of pollutants into the environment per year for decades and thereby not do any harm to the Earth is NOT a prime example of human arrogance? Whether they are contaminants like organophosphates or polychlorinated biphenyls, greenhouse gases like methane or carbon dioxide, or metallotoxics like mercury and lead far in excess of their natural quantities, these industrial and commercial effluents are very abundantly clearly negatively impacting different parts of the world, be it water quality or air quality or habitat quality. That's not "fear-mongering," that's common sense.

Oh, and where does your uncle work? NOAH? Do you happen to mean the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA? Do you actually have any cognizance of the scientific community, beyond mere hear-say? Because just hearing your opinions from others instead of actually looking things up in, say, scientific literature and journals would explain why you thought your uncle worked at a place called "NOAH."

On July 05 2010 10:03 Myles wrote:
LOL, a pollutant can be anything that causes problems. Pollutants in small quantities don't cause problems(most anyways) and a lot are actually required in nature - but they cause problems in the concentrations we put out.

I'm not sold on increased CO2 causing incredible climate change, but it's not a good thing to swing the balance in nature so rapidly. Of course some of the stuff proposed is foolish, but getting off fossil fuels as primary sources of energy necessary in the long run anyways. We just need a smooth and cost-effective transition out of them.

On July 05 2010 brain_ wrote:
ANIMAL FARTS RELEASE AS MUCH GREENHOUSE GASSES ANNUALLY (in the form of methane) AS EVERY CAR IN THE WORLD.

On July 05 2010 10:23 Tadzio wrote:



That's not true. What is true is that an agricultural cow will produce as much climate damage in one day as one car during the same time period. There are two reasons the distinction I'm making is important: 1) There are fewer cows in the US than there are cars (~100 million cows, ~250 million cars). 2) Agricultural cows are still a human-cause-- they would not exist if not for our care/needs.

Turn off your capslock, btw.

On July 05 2010 10:30 brain_ wrote:



Worldwide, not just in the US. Worldwide there are ~1.5 billion cows and billions of other grazing animals. America's car-to-person ratio is probably the highest in the world, though I'm just guessing.

And if you consider them a "human cause"... Does that mean we can't eat meat? And what about the billions of herd animals that would exist if human populations were much smaller? Think about the buffalo - at least 50 million existed before humans wiped them out. The same story repeats all over the world. Should we cut down the human population and then slaughter wild grazing animals to keep emissions at a minimum?

Mild greenhouse gasses like CO2 aren't "pollutants". They are a natural part of the environment. Hell, ANIMAL FARTS RELEASE AS MUCH GREENHOUSE GASSES ANNUALLY (in the form of methane) AS EVERY CAR IN THE WORLD.

Volcanic eruptions can spew billions of tons into the atmosphere. All of this has been going on for millennia, loooooooong before humans were around.

And what do you have to say about my other points? Like the fact that we are utterly powerless in the face of natural forces? The climate will swing back and forth- it is inevitable.

Luckily people are skeptical enough that we won't pass onerous regulations (which, by the way, is just a gigantic scheme to empower the government and redistribute wealth). That way we won't all look like idiots in a few decades when the fad dies down and all of the hysteria and nonsense is disproved and discredited.