[d4nth3m4n]

http://streams.cei.org/

check out the videos on this site.
these spots will be airing in 14 american cities for the next 10 days.

scripts of the spots.

COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE: Global Warming/“Energy” (:60)

There’s something in these pictures you can’t see.
It’s essential to life.
We breathe it out.
Plants breathe it in.
It comes from animal life, the oceans, the earth,
and the fuels we find in it.
It’s called carbon dioxide---CO2.
The fuels that produce C02 have
freed us from a world of back-breaking labor,
lighting up our lives,
allowing us to create and move
the things we need, the people we love.
Now some politicians want to label carbon dioxide a pollutant.
Imagine if they succeed.
What would our lives be like then?
Carbon dioxide.
They call it pollution.
We call it life.

and even better yet-

COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE: Global Warming/“Glaciers” (:60)

You've seen those headlines about Global Warming.
The glaciers are melting. We’re doomed!
That's what several studies supposedly found.
But other scientific studies found exactly the opposite:
Greenland’s glaciers are growing, not melting;
The Antarctic ice sheet is getting thicker, not thinner.
Did you see any big headlines about that?
Why are they trying to scare us?
Global warming alarmists claim the glaciers are melting
because of carbon dioxide from the fuels we use.
Let’s force people to cut back, they say.
But we depend on those fuels
To grow our food,
move our children,
light up our lives.
And as for carbon dioxide,
It isn't smog or smoke.
It’s what we breathe out and plants breathe in.
Carbon dioxide.
They call it pollution.
We call it life.

sources for their claims are in the .pdf scripts of these spots.

http://www.cei.org/pdf/GWGlaciers-annotatedscript.pdf
http://www.cei.org/pdf/GWEnergy-annotatedscript.pdf

this is horsesh*t and it infuriates the crap out of me.

[black bear theory]

too much of a good thing.

[d4nth3m4n]

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...titute#Funding

[itistoday]

That's gotta be one of the dumbest, worst things I've ever seen. Where was that jpg I made... ah, here you go:



Fact: The woman in those commercials is a stupid bitch.

Fact: Over 90% of scientists and data disagree with her, including even Bush's own team of investigators.

Fact: Carbon dioxide is toxic and traps heat.

That woman seems to love carbon dioxide a little too much. Perhaps she should marry it. Does she know it'll kill her if she breathes in an environment rich in it?

[Spliffdaddy]

Finally. Equal time.

Poke fun if you want, but it looks like they have more experts than the global warming theorists.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Poke fun if you want, but it looks like they have more experts than the global warming theorists.

Do you get off on spewing bullshit and lies?

[MinM]

Originally Posted by d4nth3m4n

this is horsesh*t and it infuriates the crap out of me.

God forbid the public be allowed to see both sides of an important debate.

[Spliffdaddy]

All I can figure is that the global warming theorists are afraid their theory won't stand up to public scrutiny.

If it's all true, why are they worried?

The whole theory was born from faulty data (Mann) - and perpetuated by the UN, who finally admitted there was no basis for blaming it on man-made causes. So, instead of letting the bogus theory die, they spent another decade trying to prove it really was true.

Let it die. Please.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by MinM

God forbid the public be allowed to see both sides of an important debate.

Yes, God forbid the public is brainwashed by lies. This kind of logic doesn't work when the other side is obviously wrong. Example:

Debate topic: Guns kill

Position A: If you are shot in the head with a gun, it will kill you.
Position B: Getting shot in the head is perfectly fine. Try it.

Why must I point out the obvious?

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

All I can figure is that the global warming theorists are afraid their theory won't stand up to public scrutiny.

Hah! 'Global warming theorists' have their ideas scrutinized by even tougher critics than the public. The public doesn't know sh*t when it comes to climate change, but other scientists do. And guess what? Almost unanimous consensus.

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

If it's all true, why are they worried?

They don't like lies, especially when those lies lead to the destruction of the Earth and all living creatures on it. Is that so hard to understand?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by itistoday

Yes, God forbid the public is brainwashed by lies.

Wow, the irony.

In the Pentagon thread, you just got through expounding on how the WTC didn’t collapse because of planes hitting it, but because of some explosives conspiracy theory.

You’re not exactly the type that does the global warming crowd any favors for credibility (though I'd say you were fairly typical).

Excuse me if we go elsewhere for more critical thought on the matter.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

It's a simple public-relations stunt designed to give people like Spliffdaddy a reason to nod their heads and go "hey! I knew it!" and then spew more lies and BS about which side "has more experts."

Everyone who knows anything about the issue knows CO2 isn't "pollution" in normal amounts. The greenhouse effect is responsible for almost all life on earth - without it our average temperature would be far below freezing.

The problem with the issue is that it requires a lot of study. The public is uneducated - you've got guys like a refrigeration dude and a machinist telling this forum why climate change isn't real. Makes sense that there's so much crap floating around out there.

greg

[MinM]

Originally Posted by itistoday

Debate topic: Guns kill

Guns are inanimate objects. They can't kill anyone on their own.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Wow, the irony.

In the Pentagon thread, you just got through expounding on how the WTC didn’t collapse because of planes hitting it, but because of some explosives conspiracy theory.

In the Pentagon thread, I expressed shock at a video posted. The video contained rather compelling evidence that you did not address. I fail to see how that affects my credibility. Perhaps if you had completely trounced all of the points in that video your statements here might have some validity to them, but as it stands you did no such thing.

Either way, that was a completely different topic.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

You’re not exactly the type that does the global warming crowd any favors for credibility

Oh yeah? What 'type' am I then? Have you seen my posts in the other global warming threads?

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by MinM

Guns are inanimate objects. They can't kill anyone on their own.

Ah. I see. Guns are inanimate objects, and a gas isn't. OK.

What about spikes? Lava? Acid? Quick Sand? Steep cliffs? Man holes? Hurricanes? Earthquakes? lol. Something doesn't have to be alive to be dangerous.

Either way, you completely missed the point of my post. Try again.

[MinM]

Originally Posted by itistoday

Ah. I see. Guns are inanimate objects, and a gas isn't. OK.

The point (which you missed) is that oversimplifying an issue (as your example did with guns, and as many do with climate change) often leads to irrational conclusions.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by MinM

The point (which you missed) is that oversimplifying an issue (as your example did with guns, and as many do with climate change) often leads to irrational conclusions.

The point (which you missed), was to show you that there aren't 'two sides' to this debate with equal validity. It's more like there's this one side of scientists with a mountain of evidence, and then another side of primates with no evidence at all, only their firms "beliefs".

[d4nth3m4n]

Originally Posted by MinM

God forbid the public be allowed to see both sides of an important debate.

you didn't seem to notice who these people are, did you?
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...titute#Funding

[- - e r i k - -]

sourcewatch.org:
Michael Fumento is the author of books including Science Under Seige and The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS, Fumento is a virtual poster child for what right-wing institutions can foster. Prior to CEI, he did a stint at the American Enterprise Institute; after he left, he went on to the Hudson Institute.

Classy.

[TailsToo]

Enjoy scenic Venus - full of Carbon Dioxide.

[Spliffdaddy]

It stands to reason, since the poster children for the left have all jumped on the global warming bandwagon.

[- - e r i k - -]

The problem with environmental issues today is that it has become a political issue rather than a scientific issue and people like yourself let's objectivity fly out the window.

[itistoday]

Ah Venus... Goddess of Love...

Fun fact for those unaware: It's also the hottest planet in the solar system, yet twice as far from the sun than Mercury. It's average surface temperature is 866.93 degrees fahrenheit, that's 205.2 degrees hotter than Mercury's surface temperature when the sun is shining directly at it during the day.

[Spliffdaddy]

I hope you folks are still participating in these forums ten years from now.

Because I plan to say "I told you so" to each and every one.

You'll soon see that the scientists and climate researchers were right all along...global cooling is real.

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by itistoday

Ah Venus... Goddess of Love...

venus is a poor analogy. if our CO2 got that high then it would stand that it might be classified as pollution, but as it is, anyone with more than a passing knowledge of science should not classify CO2 as pollution. there are tons of other chemicals that are released when you burn fossil fuels which are not beneficial to either animal or plant - that is pollution.

the fallacy of their argument is equating CO2 with pollution. while both do occur as byproducts when you burn certain types of fuel, they have opposite effects. CO2, a greenhouse gas, absorbs heat and contributes to the globally warming temperatures, the other stuff (the real pollution) tends to cool the atmosphere (think big volcanic eruptions, post WWII industrial boom) and has adverse health effects.

[d4nth3m4n]

Originally Posted by MinM

God forbid the public be allowed to see both sides of an important debate.

what side are they presenting? the message of these spots seems to be only that there's nothing wrong. so there. we're right and they're not, why? because we said so.

argue with global warming don't just discount it because it's natural. hell, arsenic is natural, but i surely don't want more of that in my day to day.

i like how they pin it all on plants to bail us out of this. nevermind the part where they're becoming rarer because of the footprint of mankind as well.

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

I hope you folks are still participating in these forums ten years from now.

Because I plan to say "I told you so" to each and every one.

You'll soon see that the scientists and climate researchers were right all along...global cooling is real.

so you'll admit that the global climate has been changed by the impact of mankind? whether it gets cooler or hotter, i think there's a much bigger issue than whether it's getting cooler or hotter. like maybe the issue where the climate is changing and we had a hand in it.

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

I hope you folks are still participating in these forums ten years from now.

Because I plan to say "I told you so" to each and every one.

You'll soon see that the scientists and climate researchers were right all along...global cooling is real.

wait ten years? you already do this now and never back up any of your assertions with facts.

i usually don't like quoting from other threads (the inconvenient truth), but this is a good example:

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

I figure in about ten more years it will be very apparent that temperatures have not yet increased - and won't be likely to increase at all in the future.

it's just data. maybe you call it cooling, but i call it warming... i know, i know, i shouldn't be a hater.

[edit: subbed in a smaller pic: original]

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

Everyone who knows anything about the issue knows CO2 isn't "pollution" in normal amounts. The greenhouse effect is responsible for almost all life on earth - without it our average temperature would be far below freezing.

The problem with the issue is that it requires a lot of study. The public is uneducated - you've got guys like a refrigeration dude and a machinist telling this forum why climate change isn't real. Makes sense that there's so much crap floating around out there.

greg

now that you mention it, there is crap, and has always been a little crap in our water, - i guess you could argue that it's natural (and i'd agree) - but if you start dumping tons of crap into your stream, at what point does it start to pollute the water?

[Spliffdaddy]

Judging by that graph, it appears that there was an "anomaly" in the temperature for 75 years...it was too low!!

I wonder if that was because there wasn't enough C02 in the atmosphere.

Makes sense, right?

But I'm sure there had to be a man-made cause for that. I mean, everytime there's an "anomaly" - it couldn't be a naturally-occurring phenomenon - else it wouldn't be an "anomaly".

Wait...perhaps the 0.38C increase over the last 75 years was a natural thing!

So let me get this right...

.5 degrees too low is not a problem. .5 degrees too high means the end of the world is coming?

Seems to me that if it was 0,5C too low for 75 years - followed by .5C too high for the following 75 years, then the average would be, well, normal.

um. ok.

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Judging by that graph, it appears that there was an "anomaly" in the temperature for 75 years...it was too low!!

I wonder if that was because there wasn't enough C02 in the atmosphere.

Makes sense, right?

i know! those damn enviro-weenies forced those nice corporations to stop dumping tons of SO2 into the atmosphere. dang pot-smoking hippies!

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Wait...perhaps the 0.38C increase over the last 75 years was a natural thing!

it also cooled 0.1C in ten years*! global cooling! it's so effing obvious!



* (from '40-'50)

[Spliffdaddy]

So why did it cool for 75 years?

If that can't be explained, then I doubt there's a real explanation for the warming.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

So why did it cool for 75 years?

If that can't be explained, then I doubt there's a real explanation for the warming.

There are multiple explanations and you can read about them on the wiki on global cooling.

What you seem to fail to comprehend is that global warming is accurate because it predicts weather over a long period of time. It's a theory that says: "CO2 traps heat. CO2 levels are increasing. The Earth is getting steadily warmer. Because of this continuing increase in green house gasses, there will be a general increase in global temperatures over the next few decades".

What you're asking is very hard to answer because of the incredible amount of factors. We can barely begin to explain exactly why yesterday was colder than today, but global warming does not address micro changes, it addresses macro changes, and those can be explained.

[Spliffdaddy]

hahahahaha

stop! I'm laughing so hard it hurts

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

hahahahaha

stop! I'm laughing so hard it hurts

I already knew you were retarded, you don't have to make it so obvious.

[d4nth3m4n]

oh dear, here we go.

[itistoday]

OK OK I won't go any further with the flaming.... He's just too obnoxious.

[Spliffdaddy]

You really haven't done an adequate job of representing your side of things.

But I'm used to it by now.

[itistoday]

Right back at'cha, check the other thread we've been tangoing in.

[zro]

What I find "funny" is how some people get such utter delight from seeing others throw the possibility of risk for their and their children's futures to the wind. Bizarre.

You do know they just want to keep making money by selling their product, right?

[- - e r i k - -]

And that's why this has become a political issue rather than a scientific one. Sad really.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

You really haven't done an adequate job of representing your side of things.

But I'm used to it by now.

This from the guy who replies just with "hahahahaha I'm laughing so hard it hurts"?

[King Bob On The Cob]

I would also like to point out that the past few years have had several of the most active years on the Sun's surface. Add that to the fact that it is believed that Mars may be experiencing global warming, and I just don't see this as dire as some would make you believe.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/in...ming/#more-143
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ge_031208.html

(I did just finish a class on this taught by a scientist who worked with the UN on Global Warming, so I'd say I was pretty well taught by the liberal side)

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

You really haven't done an adequate job of representing your side of things.

But I'm used to it by now.

My advice: give up while you're ahead. Walk away from this one.

You do not have the scientific grounding to debate against itistoday, black bear, and Moncton. Your personal commentary does not change the alleged facts of the matter, which thus far you've been unable to debate in a way that discounts what these guys have been saying.

More substance, less debate rhetoric.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob

I would also like to point out that the past few years have had several of the most active years on the Sun's surface. Add that to the fact that it is believed that Mars may be experiencing global warming, and I just don't see this as dire as some would make you believe.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/in...ming/#more-143
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ge_031208.html

(I did just finish a class on this taught by a scientist who worked with the UN on Global Warming, so I'd say I was pretty well taught by the liberal side)

Here, let me reproduce the text of the first link.

Solar Warming?

Just when you were starting to believe that variations in the amount of energy coming from the sun weren’t responsible for much of the observed surface warming during the past 20 years, comes along a paper in Geophysical Research Letters from two researchers at Duke University, Nicola Scafetta and Bruce West, that concludes otherwise:

We estimate that the sun contributed as much as 45–50% of the 1900–2000 global warming, and 25–35% of the 1980–2000 global warming. These results, while confirming that anthropogenic-added climate forcing might have progressively played a dominant role in climate change during the last century, also suggest that the solar impact on climate change during the same period is significantly stronger than what some theoretical models have predicted.


Scafetta and West arrive at their conclusions after applying a mathematical scheme that allows the cycles in solar variations to explain the cycles in temperature variations. They find this empirical method far superior to theoretical (i.e. climate models) methods because empirical methods take advantage of real behavior while theoretical methods are just that—theories—which very likely do not capture all of the real-world intricacies relating solar energy to climate processes.

The authors summarize:

The sun played a dominant role in climate change in the early past, as several empirical studies would suggest, and is still playing a significant, even if not a predominant role, during the last decades. The impact of solar variation on climate seems significantly stronger than predicted by some energy balance models…The significant discrepancy between empirical and theoretical model estimates might arise because the secular TSI [total solar irradiance] proxy reconstructions are disputed and/or because the empirical evidence deriving from the deconstruction of the surface temperature is deceptive for reasons unknown to us. Alternatively, the models might be inadequate because of the difficulty of modeling climate in general and a lack of knowledge of climate sensitivity to solar variations in particular. In fact, theoretical models usually acknowledge as solar forcing only the direct TSI forcing while empirical estimates would include all direct and indirect climate effects induced by solar variation. These solar effects might be embedded in several climate forcings because, for example, a TSI increase might indirectly induce a change in the chemistry of the atmosphere by increasing and modulating its greenhouse gas (H2O, CO2, CH4, etc.) concentration because of the warmer ocean, reduce the earth albedo by melting the glaciers and change the cloud cover patterns. In particular, the models might be inadequate: (a) in their parameterizations of climate feedbacks and atmosphere-ocean coupling; (b) in their neglect of indirect response by the stratosphere and of possible additional climate effects linked to solar magnetic field, UV radiation, solar flares and cosmic ray intensity modulations; (c) there might be other possible natural amplification mechanisms deriving from internal modes of climate variability which are not included in the models. All the above mechanisms would be automatically considered and indirectly included in the phenomenological approach presented herein.

The bigger the observed solar impact, the smaller the observed human impact. The smaller the human impact, the less sensitive the climate is to greenhouse gas emissions. The less sensitive the climate is to greenhouse gas emissions, the less the impact greenhouse changes (and greenhouse gas emissions restrictions) will have in the future.

Reference:

Scafetta, N., and B. J. West, 2006. Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900-2000 global surface warming. Geophysical Research Letters, doi: 1029/2005GL025539.

Yes, emphasis is mine.

Of course since these guys are actual scientists, they must be on Big Oil's™ payroll.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Well they obviously think the audience will be stupid enough to believe it.

They should of said "Carbon Dioxide kills terrorists and keeps illegal immigrants out".

[besson3c]

BTW, the correct spelling is "carbon", not "carbin"

[d4nth3m4n]

hahhaa, i didn't even notice that. oh well, everywhere else i posted this thread, i got it right.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by smacintush

Yes, emphasis is mine.

Of course since these guys are actual scientists, they must be on Big Oil's™ payroll.

I'd like to point out that the scientists who wrote that article believe merely that the sun plays a more important role that previously thought. Their estimate? 10% to 30% of the global warming displayed between 1980 and 2002 could be from solar fluctuation.

10% to 30%, I'll repeat again. I'll also say that they state, in no uncertain terms, that this in no way is meant to prove that greenhouse gases don't have any sort of effect - again, merely that the sun does play a role, which had been debated by earlier researchers.

greg

[d4nth3m4n]

Originally Posted by Chris V

A post from Metafilter:

They quickly flash the covers of two journal papers to justify the wrong-headedness of the rest of the scientific community.

Actually going and reading those papers is elnightening. The first, Recent Ice-Sheet Growth in the Interior of Greenland summarizes that the growth is not substantial and, to the degree that it exists, is likely due to the increased precipitatave release of moisture that has built up in the atmosphere because of global warming.

The rationale is that as the world gets hotter more water is evaporated from the atmosphere. That water is deposited over the whole ice field, but the only areas that maintain a low enough temperature to collect it are the higher elevations. The lower elevations are still losing glacial volume in spite of the added precipitation. They draw no conclusion on the net volume change over time.

The second paper corroborates this, saying the change amounts to a partial redistribution of water from the lower altitudes to the higher, the net effect of which is a slowing of ocean rise by 0.18 mm/yr in a model where the overall rise would be 1mm/yr.

One thing all the studies agree on is that these changes are the result of global warming, rather than evidence against it


link 1
link 2

So basically, they even have to take their "some scientists" out of context in order to find any science at all to back this tripe up.

...