Reply With Quote
Like you yourself said, most people are lost on the hard science.
Penn Jillette was at the first Earth Day in 1970. Were you?
Years of researching. And you post Penn and Teller.
Like you yourself said, most people are lost on the hard science.
Penn Jillette was at the first Earth Day in 1970. Were you?
I don't care what the IPCC is. All I know is that their predictions have already been wrong.
This guy is doing good work to point out the flaws in surface temperature measurement in the US. Kinda like how a kid will put a thermometer to a light bulb to fake a fever.
http://www.surfacestations.org/
Crafty. You dabble in propaganda, then?
What? I was three years old. This relates to what, please?Penn Jillette was at the first Earth Day in 1970. Were you?
You have this annoying habit of redirecting the poster with a nonsensical question.
I could just post my 127 bookmarks on the subject, but I don't think most people will invest the time do read them all.
My question to you is, do you deliberately misdirect people, or is this an unconscious tic?
Please. I do respect you, but this is making that hard.
The video you link here is the propaganda. It will take me time, but I am going over it. If you took the time to verify anything they said in it, you would realize you are a fool for believing it.
Please stop drinking the Kool-Aid and do some fact checking. This make you look real foolish.
WH,
Does it bother you that short-term predictions of the IPCC computer models have already been erroneous?
Does that give you more or less confidence in their long-term predictions?
i thought the science was settled?
global warming is the new black and it's fading quickly
Well, your familiarity with the source material barely shows in your own posts, and if people are as dumb as you and I say they are, having previously gleaned no benefit from your posts, what good will following the links do them?
For all the good they've apparently done you, I reckon I'll pass on the bookmarks too.
Last edited by Winehole23; 07-03-2009 at 12:18 PM.
The sky is falling, The sky is falling.... Run for ur lives!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No.
It does not bother me. I do not care that your adversaries use it to support their case. The crappy cap and trade bill bothers me. The rationale for it, not so much.
I do not care about the accuracy or inaccuracy of IPCC's long term predictions. Climatology is young, the world it describes is staggering complex.
I don't set a whole lot by computer climate modeling, personally. Certainly not to predict the future.
I don't hold the bad guesses against them as much as you apparently do, but then again, I'm not betting on the proximate outcomes.
Unless the bet paid off, it seems rather con uous to rub in the *win*.
Here are some quick findings from the propaganda you posted WH:
Carl Woontz
The video only says it was cut out that he did believe global warning was a threat. So what. The Great Global Warming Swindle is only addressing antropogenic global warming.
George Manbiot (The Guardian) gives opinion, no facts.
1997 apology for against nature. Who cares? So the channel was forced to apologize. It doesn’t say why. If it was for false information, then why didn’t they say that? Could it have used their data and facts and presented it differently than their opinion holds?
1999 Storm in a D cup… As for silicone implant reducing breast cancer. I would love to see them show a clip in context. A fact about this subject is that implants help diagnose breast health, therefore reducing loss of breasts or late stage cancer. They make it easier to diagnose and treat at earlier stages. I’ll bet his words were out of context. Wiki says this:
Frederick Singer… CFC depleting the ozone, sun and skin cancer…Durkin also produced 2 do entaries for Channel 4's science strand Equinox. In 1998 he produced "Storm in a D-Cup" which argued that the medical dangers of silicone breast implants had been exaggerated for political reasons and highlighting evidence that implants may even carry medical benefits; and in 2000 he produced The Rise and Fall of GM.
This is misconstrues from a 1994 paper Singer wrote led “Ozone, Skin Cancer and SST.” He does not say sunlight doesn’t cause cancer. Some quotes:
The links between the release of CFCs into the atmosphere and the most serious concern, an increase in the incidence of skin cancer, particularly malignant melanoma, are as follows:
1. CFCs, with lifetimes of decades and longer, become well-mixed in the atmosphere, percolate into the stratosphere, and release chlorine.
2. Chlorine destroys ozone catalytically, and thereby lowers the total amount of ozone in the stratosphere.
3. A reduction in the ozone layer results in an increase in ultraviolet radiation reaching the earth's surface.
4. Exposure to more solar UV radiation leads to a huge increase in skin cancer rates and hundreds of thousands of additional deaths.
Each of these steps is controversial, has not been sufficiently substantiated, and may even be incorrect.The Skin Cancer Scare
Finally, much of the driving force behind the policy to phase out CFCs has been the fear of an epidemic of skin cancer, particularly malignant melanoma. But unlike basal and squamous cell skin cancers, which are easily cured growths caused by long-term exposure to UV-B, melanoma rates do not show the characteristic increase toward lower la udes, where UV-B is strongest. (European data on melanoma actually show an increase toward higher la udes.) And indeed, recent laboratory experiments have now established that melanoma rates are not likely to depend on exposure to solar UV-B radiation.
In a unique study, published in the July 1993 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Dr. Richard B. Setlow and colleagues at the Brookhaven National Laboratory, Long Island, New York, tackled the problem of the cause of malignant melanoma. They conducted their experiment on specially bred hybrid fish that are extremely sensitive to melanoma induction. Groups of such fish were exposed in the laboratory to radiation in narrow wavelength bands in the UV-B and UV-A region. In this way, the researchers measured the "action spectrum" (sensitivity of melanoma induction as a function of wavelength). They concluded that in natural sunlight, 90-95 percent of melanoma induction may be caused by wavelengths greater than 320 nanometers--the UV-A and visible regions of the solar spectrum. But UV-A is not absorbed by ozone, and therefore, melanoma rates would not be affected by changes in the ozone layer.As for Second Hand Smoke and Lung cancer, I know that the biggest study ever done says there is no connection. Read his material for yourself. Here is his paper:My general conclusion, based on a quarter century of involvement in the ozone controversy, is that policies should not be applied too hastily and might well benefit from a firmer science base. Furthermore, policies should be flexibly constructed so as to accommodate to a science base that inevitably undergoes change as new discoveries are made. While lip service is often paid to these principles, in practice they are outweighed by the precautionary principle ("We must act now, even if we are not sure that this policy will do us any good") and by the "public choice" paradigm ("Policies self-reinforce and entrench themselves as they build up cons uencies"). The unfortunate outcome may be an unconscionable waste of resources, a consequent loss of public trust, and a real setback to the environmental effort.
THE EPA AND THE SCIENCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL TOBACCO SMOKE
Notice how they attacked the argument over the font of the paper, but nothing about the facts other than others disagreed.
Here’s the paper led Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
OMG… At 8:23, they interview a guy that saysI agree, and thing this guy was misquoted here. If his claim was that a tiny amount of Ebola would kill you, and increasing the dosage would do the same, he may have been saying that CO2 in larger amounts has no more effect than a tiny amount.This idea that the amount of something is proportional to how important it is, is clearly silly. For instance, if I injected you with a little Ebola virus, that’s a tiny tiny amount of something, but it would have an immense impact on you, and you would die. So the amount of something is not in any way proportional to the amount of impact it might have. Carbon dioxide’s the same.
What, you didn't like *Storm in a D-Cup* ?
The rest of it I never vouched for, WC. I didn't even watch it all.
The business about selective presentation of graphs was pretty damning, I thought.
I have been giving mature consideration however, to the idea that breast implants may reduce the incidence of cancer.
What do you say, profe?
I'm just disappointed in you for bringing propaganda into a discussion. That video, like "An Inconvenient Truth," is propaganda that people easily believe who do no research themselves. Nobody here will win an argument with me about Antropogenic Global Warming, because it only exists to a small fraction of what is claimed. The video I linked in post #1 is an accurate portrayal of the facts. All the facts are easily verified.
Why? You do it all the time.I'm just disappointed in you for bringing propaganda into a discussion.
They make early detection easier. That's how it reduces deadly cancer, by early diagnosis. The implants make a mammogram far easier to properly read.
No I don't, or should I say it depends on what you mean by "propaganda." Just because you don't believe something doesn't make it propaganda, in my view. When I say propaganda, rather than the strict definition, I mean a form of misconception. Facts can be classed as propaganda going by the strict definition of the word, but how many people call facts, propaganda?
How reasonable and concise. Deadly cancer.
Thanks for getting the conversation (momentarily) back on track, profe.
I'll go along with your *facts are propaganda* thesis, WC. That would make all points of view propaganda too. I believe something like that.
Just because the other side gets "the science" wrong, doesn't make you right, or even necessarily more reliable than your adversary.
In principle, everyone can be wrong.
"My propaganda which only shows one side of the story isn't propaganda! Your propaganda which only states one side of the story IS propaganda!"
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
