Irene Prompts More Talk of Climate Change

• believer

  

  http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/28/us/28climate.html?_r=1&partner=MYWAY&ei=5065
  
  Now that Irene is bearing down on the Big Apple, the New York Slimes cannot resist digging up man-made global warming - oops - "climate change" as the culprit.
  

  The scale of Hurricane Irene, which could cause more extensive damage along the Eastern Seaboard than any storm in decades, is reviving an old question: are hurricanes getting worse because of human-induced climate change?

  Every single friggin time a hurricane pops onto the radar screen, the climate change kooks jump on board.
  
  When Bush caused Katrina and killed black people in New Orleans, the politically motivated liberal "scientists" were predicting many more storms of even greater intensity.
  
  The fact is until Irene, their predictions were patently false. The United States hasn't experienced a serious hurricane since Katrina (2005).
  
  But now that Irene is hitting the East Coast, all the kook fringe leftists are capitalizing on it to "prove' that man-made global warming - oops - climate change is a fact.
  
  When will these IDIOTS get it through their heads that (a) hurricanes happen, (b) weather patterns go in naturally occurring cycles, and (c) the sun has far, far more impact on the planet's weather than humans?
  
  They won't because leftist politicians want to control carbon emissions. They gladly fund liberal climatological "research" to "prove" that it exists to justify yet another way to raise taxes for redistribution of wealth.
• gut

  I was thinking the same thing. Although despite the lack of "extreme" weather the last few years, there has been rather extreme or unusual patterns and weather throughout the country. But without seeing empirical data, objectively it begs the question if people aren't looking at this clouded by the bias of climate change.
  
  I also think modern media and the internetz are fueling the hype and sensationalism. Moderate views seem to get very little play any more, and given how stupid the average person is I think when all that is reported on are extreme views for shock value people start to think that's representative. Weather, politics, economics...the list goes on and on.
• tk421

  

  Cause everyone in the world knows that it is specifically AMERICAN carbon emissions that contribute to global warming. Not China, India or the various other countries ramping up industry and emitting more and more. Just America, so the obvious answer is that we kill our economy in the name of the planet.
• majorspark

  

  Algore has gone completly mad. Lol at the video.
  
  http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/28/gore-global-warming-skeptics-are-this-generations-racists/
• Bigdogg

  Nova and Frontline did a pretty good job on this issue. I would encourage you to take a look.
  
  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/
• BoatShoes

  believer;875642 wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/28/us/28climate.html?_r=1&partner=MYWAY&ei=5065
  
  Now that Irene is bearing down on the Big Apple, the New York Slimes cannot resist digging up man-made global warming - oops - "climate change" as the culprit.
  
  
  
  Every single friggin time a hurricane pops onto the radar screen, the climate change kooks jump on board.
  
  When Bush caused Katrina and killed black people in New Orleans, the politically motivated liberal "scientists" were predicting many more storms of even greater intensity.
  
  The fact is until Irene, their predictions were patently false. The United States hasn't experienced a serious hurricane since Katrina (2005).
  
  But now that Irene is hitting the East Coast, all the kook fringe leftists are capitalizing on it to "prove' that man-made global warming - oops - climate change is a fact.
  
  When will these IDIOTS get it through their heads that (a) hurricanes happen, (b) weather patterns go in naturally occurring cycles, and (c) the sun has far, far more impact on the planet's weather than humans?
  
  They won't because leftist politicians want to control carbon emissions. They gladly fund liberal climatological "research" to "prove" that it exists to justify yet another way to raise taxes for redistribution of wealth.

  Alright now I'm not going to try to convince you that humans play a role in climate changing. My main contention is that you claim that the "kook fringe left" are the people who believe such things. According to the National Academy of Sciences, 97-98% of men with Ph.D's in the natural sciences who do research in the field believe in Man-Caused Climate Change. That is fine if you do not choose to believe in man-caused climate change...there have been many a reasonable man who has come to that conclusion...but the fact of that matter is that such a position is a not a mainstream, widely accepted position by the experts.
  
  Take me for instance; I'd say that I'm an agnostic and am doubtful that I can know with certainty that a divine being exists. I can argue the issue on the merits with a theist but I would not suggest that my view is in the mainstream as the evidence would clearly suggest otherwise.
  
  Sure the sensationalism of Hurricane Irene is outrageous but the fact remains....AGW is a mainstream view accepted by the vast majority of apolitical natural scientists relying on the scientific method whereas the total repudiation of the phenomenon is the fringe view. That is fine if you want to have the fringe view...the idea that the earth was round was once an unpopular view...but at least acknowledge it as such.
  
  I mean you're genuinely asserting that thousands of universities and thousands of researches are impossibly corrupt.
• Thread Bomber

  

  Two thoughts:
  
  
  Deny Deny Deny
  
  
  With the earth quake and the hurricane on the east coast, God is gently trying to nudge Obama out of office.
• FatHobbit

  

  BoatShoes;876435 wrote:Alright now I'm not going to try to convince you that humans play a role in climate changing. My main contention is that you claim that the "kook fringe left" are the people who believe such things. According to the National Academy of Sciences, 97-98% of men with Ph.D's in the natural sciences who do research in the field believe in Man-Caused Climate Change. That is fine if you do not choose to believe in man-caused climate change...there have been many a reasonable man who has come to that conclusion...but the fact of that matter is that such a position is a not a mainstream, widely accepted position by the experts.
  
  Take me for instance; I'd say that I'm an agnostic and am doubtful that I can know with certainty that a divine being exists. I can argue the issue on the merits with a theist but I would not suggest that my view is in the mainstream as the evidence would clearly suggest otherwise.
  
  Sure the sensationalism of Hurricane Irene is outrageous but the fact remains....AGW is a mainstream view accepted by the vast majority of apolitical natural scientists relying on the scientific method whereas the total repudiation of the phenomenon is the fringe view. That is fine if you want to have the fringe view...the idea that the earth was round was once an unpopular view...but at least acknowledge it as such.
  
  I mean you're genuinely asserting that thousands of universities and thousands of researches are impossibly corrupt.

  If you want to say that 98% of the people who do research on climate change think one way and then compare that to you having an argument with a theist, then I would say that the equivalent analogy is that 98% of preachers/pastors/whatever believe in god. There are quite a few people who believe it fervently and I bet they have a pretty good argument for why they are correct. It is the mainstream view for people who believe in god.
• BoatShoes

  FatHobbit;876456 wrote:If you want to say that 98% of the people who do research on climate change think one way and then compare that to you having an argument with a theist, then I would say that the equivalent analogy is that 98% of preachers/pastors/whatever believe in god. There are quite a few people who believe it fervently and I bet they have a pretty good argument for why they are correct. It is the mainstream view for people who believe in god.

  I'm agreeing with you. I agree that I don't have a mainstream view and I'm acknowledging it as such my friend. Perhaps I did not convey my thought adequately...I am free to argue their position on the merits but I would not be correct in referring to them as a kook fringe.
• queencitybuckeye

  BoatShoes;876466 wrote:I'm agreeing with you. I agree that I don't have a mainstream view and I'm acknowledging it as such my friend. Perhaps I did not convey my thought adequately...I am free to argue their position on the merits but I would not be correct in referring to them as a kook fringe.

  Only the kook fringe would attempt to tie human climate change to a specific event.
• FatHobbit

  

  BoatShoes;876466 wrote:I'm agreeing with you. I agree that I don't have a mainstream view and I'm acknowledging it as such my friend. Perhaps I did not convey my thought adequately...I am free to argue their position on the merits but I would not be correct in referring to them as a kook fringe.

  I guess my point was, someone who studies global warming is as likely to believe in it as someone who studies/preaches is likely to believe in god. They aren't exactly unbiased.
  
  I have no problem with research into global warming or climate change. My issue is when the politicians jump on and try to get rich or tax us based on it.
• BoatShoes

  FatHobbit;876490 wrote:I guess my point was, someone who studies global warming is as likely to believe in it as someone who studies/preaches is likely to believe in god. They aren't exactly unbiased.
  
  I have no problem with research into global warming or climate change. My issue is when the politicians jump on and try to get rich or tax us based on it.

  Well even if we accept that they're biased, that's why scientists use the scientific method, empiricism, a posteriori justification and peer review. The idea that there is conspiracy amongst apolitical scientists spanning the globe to promote AGW because they have some kind of vested interest or emotional/ideological committment in AGW being true is not supported by the evidence.
• BoatShoes

  queencitybuckeye;876469 wrote:Only the kook fringe would attempt to tie human climate change to a specific event.

  Well that's fine I'm not disputing the silly reaction to hurricane Irene or other weather phenomenon.
• stlouiedipalma

  Thread Bomber;876438 wrote:Two thoughts:
  
  
  Deny Deny Deny
  
  
  With the earth quake and the hurricane on the east coast, God is gently trying to nudge Obama out of office.

  At least now we know where Bachmann got her idea.
• QuakerOats

  climatescienceinternational.org
  
  get your basics there, including the exposing of bias in data etc..etc...
  
  
  and: http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/11/the-biggest-scandal-of-all-is-this.html
  
  The Day The Science Died…:
  
  "We now know the UN IPPC/Global Governance lobby had sufficient political clout to intimidate scientific journals into submission and to run roughshod over the integrity of the peer review process.
  The next global warming believer who raises "peer review" as a defence of global warming deserves to be metaphorically tarred and feathered and laughed at for the rest of his or her natural life. "
• cruiser_96

  

  It's obviously true. I mean, afterall, up until 1993, the earth had never experienced a hurricane. Mankind starts tinkering with things and the next thing you know, *BAM* hurrincanes! You wanted proof; there it is!
• Bigdogg

  QuakerOats;876611 wrote:climatescienceinternational.org
  
  get your basics there, including the exposing of bias in data etc..etc...
  
  
  and: http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/11/the-biggest-scandal-of-all-is-this.html
  
  The Day The Science Died…:
  
  "We now know the UN IPPC/Global Governance lobby had sufficient political clout to intimidate scientific journals into submission and to run roughshod over the integrity of the peer review process.
  The next global warming believer who raises "peer review" as a defence of global warming deserves to be metaphorically tarred and feathered and laughed at for the rest of his or her natural life. "

  Wrong.
  http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/aug/22/rick-perry/rick-perry-says-more-and-more-scientists-are-quest/
  
  http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/aug/14/tim-pawlenty/do-scientists-disagree-about-global-warming/
• Thread Bomber

  

  stlouiedipalma;876512 wrote:At least now we know where Bachmann got her idea.

  
  You should see what I told her about Creation and Homo's
• Thread Bomber

  

  tk421;876186 wrote:Cause everyone in the world knows that it is specifically AMERICAN carbon emissions that contribute to global warming. Not China, India or the various other countries ramping up industry and emitting more and more. Just America, so the obvious answer is that we kill our economy in the name of the planet.

  Who ever said that China, India or the various other countries ramping up industry and emitting more and more and only the US is?
  
  To think that Man has no impact on the environment Is as ludicrous as creationism. The argument should be ant is, but how much is it being affected and what is the price for being wrong.
  
  The problem with the conservative viewpoint is that it absolutely refutes that little old mankind can have any impact in the environment at all. I just cannot fathom the line of thinking that would support an opinion like that.
  
  The real problem that the right has with warming is that our Government issues regulations on emmissions and the developing countries do not, This creates yet another advantage that we do not enjoy.
  
  And to all of you righties that are worried about our children and grand children having to pay off our debt, You ought to be thinking that they need some air to breath and some dry land to live on,
  
  You lefties need to find some balance between protecting some little effin snail darter and Horned owls and having Heat and electricity to run your shitty little cars on
• Little Danny

  

  As the libs like to say, "Never let a crisis go to waste".
• believer

  

  cruiser_96;876653 wrote:It's obviously true. I mean, afterall, up until 1993, the earth had never experienced a hurricane. Mankind starts tinkering with things and the next thing you know, *BAM* hurrincanes! You wanted proof; there it is!

  This...
  

  Little Danny;876755 wrote:As the libs like to say, "Never let a crisis go to waste".

  ...and this
• mella

  I think there has been some unique weather the last few years. I do not know if this is a man made event or a cyclic event. It is a fact that the planet has gone through periods of cooling and warming over thousands of years and we may be headed toward another period of change.
• mella

  Why is the word planet showing up twice in my post when I only typed it once?
• cruiser_96

  

  mella;876909 wrote:Why is the word planet showing up twice in my post when I only typed it once?

  Another proof of global warming!!!
• gut

  Article the other day in the WSJ about how many published, peer reviewed medical studies have later been found very suspect (a few even apparently fudged the data). With millions in research grants at stake, I've lost a fair amount of confidence in "scientific" research. The EPA has been politicized for years. Another article how many economists can and have been "bought" to support particular theories.
  
  While I don't think it's fair to dismiss the climate change research, there is absolutely no question the funding and publicity is all on the side of "pro" as opposed to no. It's not just govt funding, either...lots of "green" businesses with a big stake in the game (and also getting govt funding).