Adirondack Forum

Adirondack Forum (http://www.adkforum.com/index.php)
-   Environmental Issues (http://www.adkforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=87)
-   -   Rochester Professor Proposes Jail Time (http://www.adkforum.com/showthread.php?t=19888)

Schultzz 04-09-2014 10:02 PM

Truth and/or Consequences

http://www.livescience.com/44646-climate-hate-mail.html

"Torcello's case is particularly interesting, though, because he appears to have fallen victim to precisely the type of disinformation campaign he decried. He has seen his argument distorted beyond recognition by media outlets that thrive on half truths and politically charged controversy, whipping up the ire of an ugly and angry fringe in the process."

(please see article)

redhawk 04-10-2014 12:43 AM

"it is a well-known fact that fossil-fuel interests have long been underwriting a disinformation campaign specifically designed to block climate action and confuse the public about the issue."

"Meanwhile, recently published research shows that nearly two-thirds of the industrial carbon pollution released into the atmosphere since 1854 can be directly traced to the carbon extracted from the Earth by just 90 entities — 83 producers of coal, oil and natural gas, and seven cement manufacturers."

"Society has known for years, and even decades, that the overwhelming scientific consensus is that human activity is leading the planet to dangerous and potentially catastrophic climate change. The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issues the most sober warnings yet about the imminent threat we face."

Schultzz 04-10-2014 07:14 AM

Wow. Lot's of information! One link leads to another. In my ongoing quest for the truth here's another. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming...rming-faq.html


And another http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2...ned-in-the-us/

randomscooter 04-10-2014 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cityboy (Post 215862)
A very timely essay about what bothers skeptics and how to convert them in 14 steps.

Step 1 – Stop making predictions that don’t come true.
Step 2 – When you make a prediction, don’t just say something “might” happen.
Step 3 – Don’t live your life like you don’t believe a word you’re saying.
Step 4 – Stop the hate.
Step 5 – Stop avoiding debate.
Step 6 – Answer questions.
Step 7 -*Stop enjoying catastrophes.
Step 8 – Don’t use invalid arguments.
Step 9 – When you are wrong, admit it and apologise.
Step 10 – Stop claiming that 97% of scientists agree that humans are warming the globe significantly.
Step 11 – Stop lying.* If you think it is okay to lie if it’s for a good cause, you are wrong.
Step 12 – Rebuke your fellow Warmists if they act in an unscientific way.
Step 13 – Stop blaming everything on Global Warming.
Step 14 – Why are the only solutions always big-government “progressive” policies?

Here is the whole essay: He expands upon his views.

http://joannenova.com.au/2014/04/how...ps/#more-34624

Very timely indeed. See below.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schultzz (Post 215938)
Truth and/or Consequences

http://www.livescience.com/44646-climate-hate-mail.html

"Torcello's case is particularly interesting, though, because he appears to have fallen victim to precisely the type of disinformation campaign he decried. He has seen his argument distorted beyond recognition by media outlets that thrive on half truths and politically charged controversy, whipping up the ire of an ugly and angry fringe in the process."

(please see article)

It would appear that the climate change deniers don't hold themselves to the same standards they demand of their adversaries. For example -

Step 4 – Stop the hate.
Step 8 – Don’t use invalid arguments.
(with particular reference to)
Argumentum ad baculum – “arguing by making threats, either implicitly or explicitly”
Which comes back around to my earlier point that these types of statements are not helpful, and may in fact be harmful. I'm afraid I must retract my previous statement that the list had some redeeming value as humor.

randomscooter 04-10-2014 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schultzz (Post 215945)

I find it enlightening that the author of the blog makes the following comment -
Quote:

stevengoddard says:
December 31, 2013 at 10:43 pm

Another moron shows up. These are all time record highs set or tied. There is no time bias. Where do they crank you people out at?
To me this does not portray the kind of person whose reports should be taken too seriously. If a person wishes to be taken seriously, he should act seriously.

Of course he does seem to have a disclaimer just above the comments section:
Quote:

About stevengoddard
Just having fun
So I guess he doesn't even take himself seriously. Unfortunately some people do.

TCD 04-10-2014 09:42 AM

I would point out rule #6. I actually find it a bit of a relief to have some folks in the discussion who don't take themselves too seriously.

On the flip side, there's an entire political class (Colbert, Maher, Harris-Perry, etc.) who think that debate on serious topics is best conducted by making fun of (and tacitly demonizing) the folks with a different opinion, rather than discussing facts. So you can go too far in that direction as well.

Neil 04-10-2014 09:59 AM

Interesting thread but.....

.....is the atmosphere warming up because of human-released carbon or isn't it?

Some of us might want to know.

cityboy 04-10-2014 10:16 AM

In an effort to help the undecided in forming an opinion on the Climate debate I present my sources of reliable information. I encourage Pro-Warmists to present their most reliable sources too.

Read them and decide for yourselves OR just wait 15 years an the answer should be obvious by then.

This site presents an international flavor. They're centered out of England.

http://www.thegwpf.org/

This site is the most popular. They're American.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

This site is Australian. She seems to be a free thinker unlike the previous 2 sites which tend to re-post articles. Unfortunately she recently wrote an article lauding the Koch Brothers and I'm thinking of dropping her for it.

http://joannenova.com.au/

This site is my major source for graphs. I like to look at data rather than just listen to someone's opinion. The big picture is a must see.

http://climate4you.com/

Good luck in your search for the truth.

P.S The link I previously posted to the Forbes article is a valuable aid in showing that the Warmists intentions are not as pure as they portray.

Schultzz 04-10-2014 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neil (Post 215951)
Interesting thread but.....

.....is the atmosphere warming up because of human-released carbon or isn't it?

Some of us might want to know.


This is along the lines of what I was thinking. There is money spent on both sides which steals credibility from each. While on one hand you have Rush Limburger stating that since this information is presented by liberals it must be fake, (real scientific approach), and on the other hand 90% of scientists share their opinion that Global Warming is caused by man, (still an opinion) then I guess we can all keep our own opinions and keep on seeking.

We have the serious, the ludicrous and the humorous. We have posters on this site who are serious, we have Rush who is ludicrous, and we have Goddard, Daley, and others who make a living from their attempt at being humorous. The professor from Rochester was misquoted, (he's not even a scientist), he is a philosophy professor, you have Koch and Exon donating millions to organizations who dispense more opinions which support their donors' claims. Many people in the fossil fuel industry have their livelihoods at stake, and all the GW perpetrators turn out to be 90 industrial factions out of billions of people. Everyone has a label. When you figure the "truth" out please let me know. In the meantime, I'm going fishing.

Troy64 04-11-2014 10:43 AM

Rochester Professor Proposes Jail Time
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Neil (Post 215951)
Interesting thread but.....

.....is the atmosphere warming up because of human-released carbon or isn't it?

Some of us might want to know.


That is the main question.

The global timescale is so long, it is very hard for us to comprehend. Seasons change annually and temperatures go up and down. This is normal.

Glacial (cooling) and interglacial (warming) periods may have lasted 10,000 to 1 million years each. This was well before man could have any impact on the environment.

How do we know if we are just observing the effects of a normal glacial or interglacial period? Comparing 100 years worth of temperature data is like monitoring the temperature over a few hours during the course of the day.

I am all for protecting the Earth as best we can, but I want our actions to be based on real facts, not emotional responses or feelings.

If CO2 is so bad, why don't we outlaw exhaling and carbonated drinks? Vegetation needs carbon dioxide to live, but how much is really too much?

Hobbitling 04-11-2014 12:26 PM

CO2 from our breath is carbon neutral, meaning that it releases carbon that was already in the atmosphere only a short time ago.
The carbon we exhale comes from our food. So that carbon was part of a plant not that long ago (a few years, at the most). And the plant got that carbon from the atmosphere. So there's no net change in CO2 from that.
I'm not sure where the carbon dioxide in soda comes from. Probably from the atmosphere, so it would be carbon neutral as well.
The same applies to burning wood or other biomass. It's carbon neutral. (Of course it releases smoke and particulates that are harmful in other ways)

CO2 from fossil fuels has been stored underground for many millions of years, and it took a long time to form in the fist place. So when we burn coal or oil, we're releasing, in a few years, amounts of carbon that took millions of years to remove from the atmosphere.

randomscooter 04-12-2014 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Professor Hobbit (Post 215983)
CO2 from our breath is carbon neutral, meaning that it releases carbon that was already in the atmosphere only a short time ago.
The carbon we exhale comes from our food. So that carbon was part of a plant not that long ago (a few years, at the most). And the plant got that carbon from the atmosphere. So there's no net change in CO2 from that.
I'm not sure where the carbon dioxide in soda comes from. Probably from the atmosphere, so it would be carbon neutral as well.
The same applies to burning wood or other biomass. It's carbon neutral. (Of course it releases smoke and particulates that are harmful in other ways)

CO2 from fossil fuels has been stored underground for many millions of years, and it took a long time to form in the fist place. So when we burn coal or oil, we're releasing, in a few years, amounts of carbon that took millions of years to remove from the atmosphere.

Thanks for that refresher. Critical to the problem, yet very easy to comprehend. I see a clear parallel between that and our utilization of water from aquifers, in only a few dozen years, that took thousands of years to originally fill. We simply can't expect to continue down these roads without consequences.

redhawk 04-12-2014 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by randomscooter (Post 216008)
Thanks for that refresher. Critical to the problem, yet very easy to comprehend. I see a clear parallel between that and our utilization of water from aquifers, in only a few dozen years, that took thousands of years to originally fill. We simply can't expect to continue down these roads without consequences.

As has been said a few times alread. Read "Collapse" by Jared Diamond. Find out why many civilizations "collapsed". Then look at what we are doing today and you'll see collapse on a global scale. And I don't think he address global warming at all, but rather, consuming resources faster than we can replenish them.

vtflyfish 04-13-2014 09:16 AM

The international politics of climate change
 
What's emerging is that the scientists are in universal agreement as to the causes and potential consequences of global warming. What's up for debate is who gets to pay for those consequences (the do-nothing case) or their prevention (the active CO2 reduction case).

http://news.yahoo.com/climate-panel-...--finance.html

cityboy 04-13-2014 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vtflyfish (Post 216025)
What's emerging is that the scientists are in universal agreement as to the causes and potential consequences of global warming. What's up for debate is who gets to pay for those consequences (the do-nothing case) or their prevention (the active CO2 reduction case).

http://news.yahoo.com/climate-panel-...--finance.html

"the biggest reason for the rising emissions is the higher energy needs resulting from population growth and expanding economies in the developing world, mainly in China and other large countries"

Finally! An admission as to who really is responsible for rising CO2 levels. 70% of world emissions today are now from "developing" countries. Good luck with trying to get them to slow down. Fortunately the threat is overblown because there will never be a world agreement.

Hobbitling 04-13-2014 11:09 AM

But we (people in developed countries) use much more, per person. Remember, China has about 5 times our population, but uses about the same amount of energy and produces about the same amount of CO2.
And they're producing much of that CO2 because of industrial production for consumption in the developed world. So that's sort of our pollution too.

American per-capita CO2 production is about 18 metric tons per year (and slowly falling)
Chinese per-capita CO2 production is about 6 metric tons per year (and rising)

cityboy 04-13-2014 11:25 AM

Here is a funny clip building upon the latest Climate Change scare. Only thing it needs is a better title. I'd change it to "Two days before the day after tomorrow (OMG - that's TODAY!)"

http://joannenova.com.au/2014/04/scr...w-haw-the-abc/

redhawk 04-13-2014 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cityboy (Post 216026)
"the biggest reason for the rising emissions is the higher energy needs resulting from population growth and expanding economies in the developing world, mainly in China and other large countries"

Finally! An admission as to who really is responsible for rising CO2 levels. 70% of world emissions today are now from "developing" countries. Good luck with trying to get them to slow down. Fortunately the threat is overblown because there will never be a world agreement.

BULLS*IT. The problem we have today has been caused by US and the other countries are now being made to appear the villians.. It's the old politics of blame. If you don't want to step up and accept responsibility for your acts then point the finger at someone else.

We didn't do, aren't doing and have no intention of doing anything about it, just like China and all the other emerging countries. This problem was rearing it's ugly head back when china was nothing but rice patties and most other of the present day "emerging" countries were part of some other nations imperial empire.

vtflyfish 04-13-2014 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redhawk (Post 216030)
BULLS*IT. The problem we have today has been caused by US and the other countries are now being made to appear the villians.. It's the old politics of blame. If you don't want to step up and accept responsibility for your acts then point the finger at someone else.

We didn't do, aren't doing and have no intention of doing anything about it, just like China and all the other emerging countries. This problem was rearing it's ugly head back when china was nothing but rice patties and most other of the present day "emerging" countries were part of some other nations imperial empire.

Grow up and step up ands stop trying to blame others for the problem we've caused. We're still burning coal for Gods sake. And we will as long as it's cheap. Acid rain in the Adirondacks isn't caused by China!

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

randomscooter 04-13-2014 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redhawk (Post 216030)
BULLS*IT. The problem we have today has been caused by US and the other countries are now being made to appear the villians.. It's the old politics of blame. If you don't want to step up and accept responsibility for your acts then point the finger at someone else.

We didn't do, aren't doing and have no intention of doing anything about it, just like China and all the other emerging countries. This problem was rearing it's ugly head back when china was nothing but rice patties and most other of the present day "emerging" countries were part of some other nations imperial empire.

Grow up and step up ands stop trying to blame others for the problem we've caused. We're still burning coal for Gods sake. And we will as long as it's cheap. Acid rain in the Adirondacks isn't caused by China!

I feel your pain Hawk. Perhaps Glen was right...
Quote:

Originally Posted by Glen (Post 215881)
Scoot-

You're banging your head against a brick wall. He's just going to keep posting links thinking he's changing opinions. :banghead:

Some people just aren't interested in serious discussion. Just 14 step programs and other silliness.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:40 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.