[typoon]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/

Much of the alarm over climate change is based on ignorance of what is normal for weather and climate. There is no evidence, for instance, that extreme weather events are increasing in any systematic way, according to scientists at the U.S. National Hurricane Center, the World Meteorological Organization and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (which released the second part of this year's report earlier this month).

Just thought I'd post this since many seem to wonder which scientists believe that global warming is NOT man made. This whole Man made climate change scare is a fraud perpetrated by ALgore and his Liberal hollywood cronies.

[TETENAL]

Great. I'm going to order an TV now.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by typoon 

No Such Thing As a 'Perfect' Temperature - Leadership and the Environment - MSNBC.com

Much of the alarm over climate change is based on ignorance of what is normal for weather and climate. There is no evidence, for instance, that extreme weather events are increasing in any systematic way, according to scientists at the U.S. National Hurricane Center, the World Meteorological Organization and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (which released the second part of this year's report earlier this month).

Just thought I'd post this since many seem to wonder which scientists believe that global warming is NOT man made. This whole Man made climate change scare is a fraud perpetrated by ALgore and his Liberal hollywood cronies.

Sorry Typoon, Lindzen will be labeled here as a contrarian and pariah despite his credentials and life's work in the field of climate change. The lefts agenda is set and the USA is the bullseye. Make no mistake about it.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Sorry Typoon, Lindzen will be labeled here as a contrarian and pariah despite his credentials and life's work in the field of climate change. The lefts agenda is set and the USA is the bullseye. Make no mistake about it.

There you go again! I expected you to post this thread; you must be sleeping at the switch. Before it gets locked, which it should, as it's a duplicate thread, here's my two cents.

"His research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies."


Now, you don't suppose that maybe he's one of the many scientists who've been told to alter their findings by the gubment, do you? Nah!

[Warren Pease]

There has been a net warming of the earth over the last century and a half, and our greenhouse gas emissions are contributing at some level. Both of these statements are almost certainly true.

His argument is not that man does not contribute to global warming, rather the effects of that may be beneficial for some. At the same time, it may not be beneficial for others though, depending on where you live.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by typoon 

Just thought I'd post this since many seem to wonder which scientists believe that global warming is NOT man made. This whole Man made climate change scare is a fraud perpetrated by ALgore and his Liberal hollywood cronies.

The idea that humans are contributing to global warming is agreed to by 99% of all scientists who study this, including the author of this op-ed you posted. You might try looking at its second and third sentences. And this one guy is probably the most-often cited critic. All he's saying is that "yes, we're encouraging global warming, but who cares, it'll just be warmer outside." He's not saying that global warming isn't man-made. Why don't you do even the tiniest bit of research, even just reading your own piece that you linked?

When are you conservatives going to start contributing something worthwhile to this issue? Claiming this is a fraud of "ALgore" (whatever that means - why do conservatives always have to misspell people's names they don't like?) and liberal hollywood just shows how far gone you are. There's a legitimate debate to be had about it. This author is engaging it and makes some worthwhile points. You, typoon, are not.

What has conservatism become? The following:
The earth is 6000 years old.
Global warming is a lie.
You can raise revenues by cutting taxes.
Iraq is like Indiana.

Truth and facts no longer matter to you people. I got news for you typoon: We need you. We need you to be responsible members of our society, to engage in needed debates. To care about truth. "ALgore is a fraud!!!!" is not a responsible competition of ideas. Get off your asses and start contributing something worthwhile.

[Timo]

^ an intelligent, thoughful post.

BUT WILL IT MATTER?

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by Timo 

^ an intelligent, thoughful post.

BUT WILL IT MATTER?

But if you’re apathetic, what do you care either way?

[Nicko]

man-made in action:

Toxic truth of secretive Siberian city
A BBC team has entered a remote region of Russia normally closed to foreigners that produces almost half the world's supply of palladium - a precious metal vital for making catalytic converters. But, as the BBC's Richard Galpin reports, it is accused of being the world's largest producer of acid rain.

It took more than two months for the Russian authorities to grant us permission to travel to the secretive Siberian city of Norilsk.

For decades it has been closed to foreigners (only briefly opening up in the late 1990s) because it is deemed to be a strategic region.

It was once ringed by silos containing intercontinental ballistic missiles.

But nowadays it has something else it wants to hide from the rest of the world - chronic pollution.

Toxic cocktail

From a distance it looks like a front of bad weather moving in and obscuring the otherwise pristine Arctic sky.

But drive closer and the source of the long streams of "cloud" flowing over the city and far beyond becomes clear.


In the 1960s a lot of people came here and they were all healthy. But now there are very, very few healthy children being born here
Doctor Svetlana Golubkova
Norilsk resident
To blame are the clusters of huge chimneys at three smelting plants which surround Norilsk.

Twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, the chimneys pump out a toxic cocktail of pollutants which the company responsible openly admits is mostly sulphur dioxide.

Once in the atmosphere this gas turns into acid rain.

The company Norilsk Nickel - currently worth about $34bn (£17bn) - also admits that other pollutants including heavy metals are being pumped out, though in far smaller quantities.

"In the summer the winds change and often the gas falls onto the city," says local cameraman Andrei Razdevilov. "It's felt by everyone and it becomes difficult to breathe."

Norilsk Nickel, which owns the smelters and all the nearby mines containing the precious metal ore, allowed us into the largest of their smelting plants, which they call "Hope".

Built in the late 1970s, it is the most modern of the three plants. The oldest dates back to the 1930s, when the metal industry and Norilsk were built from scratch by prison labourers - victims of Stalin's brutal Gulag.

The inner sanctum of "Hope" is a deafening, choking cauldron.

Vast furnaces roast the ore extracted from the mines, eventually disgorging streams of red-hot liquid metal into containers that dwarf the workers standing nearby.

A rich mix of metals is produced here, including nickel, copper, palladium, platinum, gold and silver.

But the ore also contains a large amount of sulphur.

'Dead zone'

Our guide, acting chief engineer Igor Dmitriev, was candid about the amount of pollution the plant is producing every year

"Nine hundred thousand tons of sulphur dioxide is emitted by this plant," he told me. "That is the amount agreed with the government."


According to figures provided by the company, the total amount of sulphur dioxide produced by all three plants is almost two million tons a year - a figure which has only decreased by about 16% since the last days of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s.

The environmental organisation Greenpeace Russia says the pollution has created a 30km (19 mile) "dead zone" around the city and quotes scientists as saying the acid rain has spread across an area equivalent in size to Germany.

Health fears

We drove to one of the woods just outside Norilsk to see for ourselves what has happened.

We soon found many trees which were either dead or dying.

According to local residents the evidence is even easier to see later in the year.

"Things start to grow green then," Doctor Svetlana Golubkova told us. "But the gas cloud goes over and they die."

Even more worrying for her is the impact on the health of the population, particularly children.

She says she has detected a clear trend.

"In the 1960s a lot of people came here and they were all healthy. But now there are very, very few healthy children being born here and that is all because of the environment."

She's worried about her own teenage daughter, who has eye problems, and wants her to move to a different city.

But for the company Norilsk Nickel, which employs most of the city's workforce, there is a huge amount of money at stake.

It is the world's largest producer of both nickel and palladium.

It made more than $2bn net profit in the first half of last year alone and company officials told us there is enough ore in the mines around Norilsk to keep them in business for at least another 30 years.

Cutting emissions

The deputy general director of Norilsk Nickel, Tav Morgan, told me the company accepted responsibility for what had happened to the forests, but insisted they were taking action to cut the pollution.

"For the period up to 2015-2020 we expect to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions by approximately two-thirds," he said.

"Looking at the pace we're resolving these problems you can compare it favourably to other facilities worldwide."

But he later admitted it was hard to guarantee this pace of reduction because he said they were still developing the technology.

Environmental groups such as Greenpeace are deeply sceptical.

They say the company faces the significant problem of what to do with the huge amounts of sulphur which will remain if it is not burnt off.

Transporting it to world markets is difficult because Norilsk is located in such a remote Arctic region.

Environmental campaigners are also wary because they say there is a lack of independent scrutiny of the amount of pollution created by the company.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/h...pe/6528853.stm

Published: 2007/04/05 10:05:21 GMT

© BBC MMVII

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Timo 

^ an intelligent, thoughful post.

BUT WILL IT MATTER?

Thanks.

And I don't know what I'll do with myself if it turns out that internet rants can't change the world.

[Timo]

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

The idea that humans are contributing to global warming is agreed to by 99% of all scientists who study this, including the author of this op-ed you posted. You might try looking at its second and third sentences. And this one guy is probably the most-often cited critic. All he's saying is that "yes, we're encouraging global warming, but who cares, it'll just be warmer outside." He's not saying that global warming isn't man-made. Why don't you do even the tiniest bit of research, even just reading your own piece that you linked?

When are you conservatives going to start contributing something worthwhile to this issue? Claiming this is a fraud of "ALgore" (whatever that means - why do conservatives always have to misspell people's names they don't like?) and liberal hollywood just shows how far gone you are. There's a legitimate debate to be had about it. This author is engaging it and makes some worthwhile points. You, typoon, are not.

What has conservatism become? The following:
The earth is 6000 years old.
Global warming is a lie.
You can raise revenues by cutting taxes.
Iraq is like Indiana.

Truth and facts no longer matter to you people. I got news for you typoon: We need you. We need you to be responsible members of our society, to engage in needed debates. To care about truth. "ALgore is a fraud!!!!" is not a responsible competition of ideas. Get off your asses and start contributing something worthwhile.

You're an ass with your stereotypes.

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

You're an ass with your stereotypes.

Stereotype or not, he's got the tone of your average post down pat.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

You're an ass with your stereotypes.

Oh come on. It's supposed to go "You're an ass, BRUSSELLSprouts with your stereotypes. Why should enyone listen to B-Sprout anyway, everyone agrees he's a commie..."

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

You're an ass with your stereotypes.

Did the liberals make you say that, or is it another of those "long day at work, and wine before dinner" excuses. You've not succeeded in tempering your remarks here at all. Anyone who disagrees with you is either a whining simpleton or an ignoramus. As I've mentioned before, you should see someone about that anger issue.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Looks like he struck a nerve!

A mere 6 words, brings on several angry responses... and yet Orion's the one with anger issues?



More pot.kettle.black comedy gold from the p-lounge!

[Uncle Skeleton]

I guess anger is in the eye of the beholder

[Snow-i]

Apparently so.


I'm still astounded how partisan you people make these arguments.

There are no facts anymore only sides. Niether side will let the other side win. Nothing will get done. Don't you see you're more the same then you are different?

Science isn't partisan. You can't argue from a scientific viewpoint with a partisan agenda. It just don't work.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I'm still astounded how partisan you people make these arguments.

There are no facts anymore only sides.

Frankly, I've yet to see you acknowledge the existence of fact at all. Anytime anybody discusses something, you just come in and go, "Oh, stop being so belligerent with your facts! You're just being partisan!" No reasonable argument or logical dissection of what's wrong with people's arguments; just anybody who claims he's right is wrong. I don't think that kind of absolute rejection is helpful.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Niether side will let the other side win.

I don't think you're looking at this the right way. It isn't about "letting the other side win." One side is right, the other is wrong — that or neither of them are. At any rate, it doesn't matter whether the wrong side acknowledges that it's wrong. The question is whose position is logically supported by the facts.

[tie]

Originally Posted by typoon 

Just thought I'd post this since many seem to wonder which scientists believe that global warming is NOT man made. This whole Man made climate change scare is a fraud perpetrated by ALgore and his Liberal hollywood cronies.

Oh, and I had thought it was all perpetrated by the liberal elite publishing "papers" from their ivory tour "universities." I guess when you find one scientist who supports your views all of a sudden he has total credibility and all the other scientists have none.

Admit it, you are just picking and choosing sources, and then calling people who disagree with you stupid names (the random capitalization really makes you look clever, too).

[Aron Peterson]

Originally Posted by tie 

Oh, and I had thought it was all perpetrated by the liberal elite publishing "papers" from their ivory tour "universities." I guess when you find one scientist who supports your views all of a sudden he has total credibility and all the other scientists have none.

Admit it, you are just picking and choosing sources, and then calling people who disagree with you stupid names (the random capitalization really makes you look clever, too).

Imagine his face in 20 years time when it's pretty obvious the weather has changed and violence in developing nations, who will suffer the most, spreads to outside his front door.

[chabig]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

The idea that humans are contributing to global warming...

1. Contributing and causing are not the same thing.
2. Warming is not certain.
3. Warming may not be bad.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by chabig 

1. Contributing and causing are not the same thing.

Yes they are, they're exactly the same thing. "Cause" doesn't mean "exclusive cause." Smoking causes lung cancer. It's not the exclusive cause, it's not the only factor involved, but it causes it.

2. Warming is not certain.

Uh, yes it is. That's absolutely uncontroversial and has been very clearly documented.

3. Warming may not be bad.

Yes that's this author's argument. At least you got one out of three, that's better than most of the people who take up your "side" in this "debate."

[finboy]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Truth and facts no longer matter to you people.

Who is this "you people" to whom you refer? I'm offended, and THAT's a fact.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Looks like he struck a nerve!

A mere 6 words, brings on several angry responses... and yet Orion's the one with anger issues?



More pot.kettle.black comedy gold from the p-lounge!

Look at those six words. You've been here long enough and have posted in some, if not most, of his threads. He always gets to a point where he starts name calling. When he's called on it, he admits that he's angry, even admitting that he needs to temper his anger, or that he's working on it. Yesterday, he attributed it to a long day at work and wine before dinner, and once again said he's trying to tone it down. This isn't an isolated incident. As you seem to have made a determination that you know enough about this issue to comment, you might want to pay attention to the subject before you speak.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

Look at those six words. You've been here long enough and have posted in some, if not most, of his threads. He always gets to a point where he starts name calling. When he's called on it, he admits that he's angry, even admitting that he needs to temper his anger, or that he's working on it. Yesterday, he attributed it to a long day at work and wine before dinner, and once again said he's trying to tone it down. This isn't an isolated incident. As you seem to have made a determination that you know enough about this issue to comment, you might want to pay attention to the subject before you speak.

Sorry Karl, but I think you're usually more guilty of what you accuse others of, than they are. You're the one reading your own agenda into 6 words, and then accusing the poster of everything you're guilty of yourself, IE: "everyone who disagrees with you is ____ (insert fallacy here)."

The fact is, BRussel was using silly stereotypes and taking a holier-than-thou tone, and got called an ass for it. Hey, if the shoe fits. Clearly it ruffled your and others' feathers to have it pointed out.

And I fail to see where its commendable to try and use someone else's honest admissions that they are trying to deal with their temper when posting as your own anger-driven bludgeon against them. Seems just a touch... err... hypocritical perhaps?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Clearly it ruffled your and others' feathers to have it pointed out.

I'd like to interject that tickling one's funny bone is hardly equivalent to ruffling one's feathers.

[OldManMac]

Okay CH, you win. Feel better?

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I'd like to interject that tickling one's funny bone is hardly equivalent to ruffling one's feathers.

It is funny at times, isn't it?

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by finboy 

Who is this "you people" to whom you refer? I'm offended, and THAT's a fact.

You nappy-headed hos always get offended so easily.

[osiris]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

You nappy-headed hos always get offended so easily.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by typoon 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/

Much of the alarm over climate change is based on ignorance of what is normal for weather and climate. There is no evidence, for instance, that extreme weather events are increasing in any systematic way, according to scientists at the U.S. National Hurricane Center, the World Meteorological Organization and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (which released the second part of this year's report earlier this month).

Just thought I'd post this since many seem to wonder which scientists believe that global warming is NOT man made. This whole Man made climate change scare is a fraud perpetrated by ALgore and his Liberal hollywood cronies.

Firstly, you have madly mischaracterized the article. He does acknowledge anthropogenic global warming, as any reputable scientist would. His point seems to be essentially that climate is always changing and that global warming might not be that bad, both of which are true.

However, both of those ideas are also highly problematic.

Yes, climate does change, but the fossil record also shows that climate change can have serious implications for ecosystems and the species within them.

Yes, there is a chance that the net climate change will not have much disruptive impact on human activities. There is, though, such a potential for future net forcings from emerging emissions in China and India, that the world would be prudent to take notice.

So in short, the people who say the sky is falling are exaggerating.

But the people who say there's nothing to worry about at all are either liars or fools.

I suspect a share of those are only lying to themselves, because it's easy to look down your nose at others and sneer at them for being "lefties" or whatever than facing the very real fear that things are going to have to change.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Firstly, you have madly mischaracterized the article. He does acknowledge anthropogenic global warming, as any reputable scientist would. His point seems to be essentially that climate is always changing and that global warming might not be that bad, both of which are true.

However, both of those ideas are also highly problematic.

Yes, climate does change, but the fossil record also shows that climate change can have serious implications for ecosystems and the species within them.

Yes, there is a chance that the net climate change will not have much disruptive impact on human activities. There is, though, such a potential for future net forcings from emerging emissions in China and India, that the world would be prudent to take notice.

So in short, the people who say the sky is falling are exaggerating.

But the people who say there's nothing to worry about at all are either liars or fools.

I suspect a share of those are only lying to themselves, because it's easy to look down your nose at others and sneer at them for being "lefties" or whatever than facing the very real fear that things are going to have to change.

You will have to get this guy's blessing.

Jia Chunwang

Born in May 1938, native of Beijing; joined the Communist Party of China (CPC) in September 1962; started to work in August 1964; graduated from the Engineering Physics Department of Tsinghua University in 1964; top-grade chief procurator.
Studied in the Engineering Physics Department of Tsinghua University, majoring in experimental nuclear physics in 1958-64; teacher of the Department and concurrently division deputy chief of the CYLC (Communist Youth League of China) Committee of Tsinghua in 1964-66; sent to grassroots units for manual labor in 1966-72 during the "Cultural Revolution"; teacher, office director, political division deputy director and Standing Committee member of the Department's CPC Committee in 1972-78; head of the Students' Work Department of Tsinghua; secretary of Tsinghua's CYLC Committee; Standing Committee member of Tsinghua's CPC Committee in 1978-82.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by chabig 

3. Warming may not be bad.

I think it's safe to say that some people won't be affected by global warming and that some would benefit from it ... some will even profit from it.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Frankly, I've yet to see you acknowledge the existence of fact at all. Anytime anybody discusses something, you just come in and go, "Oh, stop being so belligerent with your facts! You're just being partisan!" No reasonable argument or logical dissection of what's wrong with people's arguments; just anybody who claims he's right is wrong. I don't think that kind of absolute rejection is helpful.

Look at the posts above mine. There is no argument other than "Did the liberals make you say that" among personal insults.

You show me a logical argument to dissect and I'll be happy to oblige.

If you'd like examples of times that I've done what I'm advocating we do here I'd be happy to cite them for you.

I don't think you're looking at this the right way. It isn't about "letting the other side win." One side is right, the other is wrong — that or neither of them are. At any rate, it doesn't matter whether the wrong side acknowledges that it's wrong. The question is whose position is logically supported by the facts.

You misinterpret me. I don't think a "side" is going to "win", and I believe we must get past that mentality before any progress is made. Thats the whole point of what I'm trying to say.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by typoon 

Just thought I'd post this since many seem to wonder which scientists believe that global warming is NOT man made.

Other than petty quibbling, this is the argument for the thread, which is, ironically, negated in the first paragraph of the OP's link.

There has been a net warming of the earth over the last century and a half, and our greenhouse gas emissions are contributing at some level. Both of these statements are almost certainly true.

Then the OP continues with this:

Originally Posted by typoon 

This whole Man made climate change scare is a fraud perpetrated by ALgore and his Liberal hollywood cronies.

I'd say that is when the partisan sniping started. Helmling has had the only worthwhile post in this thread with regard to the topic. And in response to that was some random non-sequitor.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

You show me a logical argument to dissect and I'll be happy to oblige.

I think the problem is that some people, on both sides of the fence, are unable to recognize logical arguments when those arguments contradict what they believe.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I think the problem is that some people, on both sides of the fence, are unable to recognize logical arguments when those arguments contradict what they believe.

i think that you, sir, hit the nail on the head.

[tie]

Originally Posted by typoon 

Just thought I'd post this since many seem to wonder which scientists believe that global warming is NOT man made. This whole Man made climate change scare is a fraud perpetrated by ALgore and his Liberal hollywood cronies.

I think it must be Queen Pelosi's fault for wanting those half-dozen 747s to ferry her entourage across the nation and to Syria. You summed it up best:

Originally Posted by typoon

This goes to show that the democrats DO help the terrorists.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

Now, you don't suppose that maybe he's one of the many scientists who've been told to alter their findings by the gubment, do you? Nah!

Have I accidentally entered the Creationism VS Evolution thread?