Setting up the Global Warming lies to come

[Deranged Rhino]

Nah, that was Poland. Really...the German reaction was largely "Hey, we kinda !@#$ed some things up. We better fix that **** before the real war starts."

 

France was more like playing Cleveland in Week 1. A pleasant warm-up that makes you overconfident going in to a real game in New England or Green Bay.

Come on, it wasn't Poland or France. It was Spain, at least in the 30s.

 

[DC Tom]

Come on, it wasn't Poland or France. It was Spain, at least in the 30s.

 

 

That, and Abyssinia, and Nomohan, and the occupation of Bohemia and Moravia...all just OTAs, really.

 

That's why France lost. You don't skip OTAs.

[birdog1960]

what motivates the opposing sides here? why would someone hypothesize and scientifically support global climate change when they truly believe it isn't real? why would someone dismiss it when the evidence suggests that it is real? i can imagine many answers to the latter (most of them concerning conservation of wealth or positive corporate or individual impacts). i can imagine few for the former, especially among relatively lowly paid climate scientists.

Edited May 17, 2014 by birdog1960

[DC Tom]

what motivates the opposing sides here? why would someone hypothesize and scientifically support global climate change when they truly believe it isn't real? why would someone dismiss it when the evidence suggests that it is real? i can imagine many answers to the latter (most of them concerning conservation of wealth or positive corporate or individual impacts). i can imagine few for the former, especially among relatively lowly paid climate scientists.

 

You're an idiot.

[B-Man]

what motivates the opposing sides here? why would someone hypothesize and scientifically support global climate change when they truly believe it isn't real?

why would someone dismiss it when the evidence suggests that it is real? i can imagine many answers to the latter (most of them concerning conservation of wealth or positive corporate or individual impacts).

 

i can imagine few for the former, especially among relatively lowly paid climate scientists.

 

That is the funniest thing you have ever written..................at least I hope that you were trying to be funny (for your sake)

 

 

You just can't fathom any other reasons why the noble 'climate scientists' would possibly want to mislead people.

 

While its easy to see why the evil rich's motives would 'dismiss' all that 'clear evidence"

 

Funny stuff.

 

 

 

.

[birdog1960]

You're an idiot.

you're a lightweight

 

That is the funniest thing you have ever written..................at least I hope that you were trying to be funny (for your sake)

 

 

You just can't fathom any other reasons why the noble 'climate scientists' would possibly want to mislead people.

 

While its easy to see why the evil rich's motives would 'dismiss' all that 'clear evidence"

 

Funny stuff.

 

 

 

.

let's see your inventory

[Gary M]

what motivates the opposing sides here? why would someone hypothesize and scientifically support global climate change when they truly believe it isn't real? why would someone dismiss it when the evidence suggests that it is real? i can imagine many answers to the latter (most of them concerning conservation of wealth or positive corporate or individual impacts). i can imagine few for the former, especially among relatively lowly paid climate scientists.

[birdog1960]

http://www.motherjon...-change-deniers

 

just for fun, google global change deniers motivation and then global change supporters motivation. and keep in mind, the internet search engines aren't the "msm".

 

http://www.telegraph...-theorists.html

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-conservative-white-maes-are-more-likely-climate-skeptics/

Edited May 17, 2014 by birdog1960

[birdog1960]

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/feb/05/denying-climate-change-scepticism-motivated-reasoning

[birdog1960]

"wedded to certainty, and to fixed beliefs." inside the conservative mind: http://www.desmogblog.com/science-truthiness-why-conservatives-deny-global-warming

[3rdnlng]

"wedded to certainty, and to fixed beliefs." inside the conservative mind: http://www.desmogblo...-global-warming

 

What a crock of schit. This is what the author says are the "facts about global warming":

 

The Facts About Global Warming

"So first off, let’s start with the facts about climate change—facts that you’d think (or you’d hope) any human being ought to accept.

It turns out that the case for human caused global warming is based on simple and fundamental physics. We’ve known about the greenhouse effect for over one hundred years. And we’ve known that carbon dioxide is a heat trapping gas, a greenhouse gas. Some of the key experiments on this, by the Irishman John Tyndall, actually occurred in the year 1859, which is the same year that Darwin publishedOn the Origin of Species.

We also know that if we do nothing, seriously bad stuff starts happening. If we melt Greenland and West Antarctica, we’re looking at 40 feet of sea level rise. This is, like, bye bye to key parts of Florida."

 

Those are the author's facts---all of them. Oh but he does mention Fox News and the Tea Party. Didn't see him mention the Koch brothers though. Maybe they weren't in the libs talking points bulletin when this was written. Birdog--I'd be embarrassed to post such horseshit.

Edited May 17, 2014 by 3rdnlng

[keepthefaith]

"wedded to certainty, and to fixed beliefs." inside the conservative mind: http://www.desmogblo...-global-warming

 

I consider myself a conservative and I'm not wedded to my own climate change beliefs. The Climate Change industry simply hasn't come anywhere close to convincing me that climate change is a problem that we as humans can positively impact. My beliefs are that much greater natural forces are the key drivers to any slight climate variations that we are seeing. In other words, if we were to all stop burning things and we executed all the cattle on the globe, scientists would still measure climate variations over time and argue about it.

 

Now if the Federal Government wants to slowly move regulations in the direction of cleaner air and water in a way that doesn't cause economic harm or increase taxes and at the same time lessens our dependency on unfriendly foreign sources of energy, I'm on board.

Edited May 17, 2014 by keepthefaith

[B-Man]

I consider myself a conservative and I'm not wedded to my own climate change beliefs. The Climate Change industry simply hasn't come anywhere close to convincing me that climate change is a problem that we as humans can positively impact. My beliefs are that much greater natural forces are the key drivers to any slight climate variations that we are seeing. In other words, if we were to all stop burning things and we executed all the cattle on the globe, scientists would still measure climate variations over time and argue about it.

 

Now if the Federal Government wants to slowly move regulations in the direction of cleaner air and water in a way that doesn't cause economic harm or increase taxes and at the same time lessens our dependency on unfriendly foreign sources of energy, I'm on board.

 

Exactly right.

 

but keep in mind, when you post articles that show flaws in the computer model projections, and their "settled" conclusions, that just shows that you have a closed mind.

 

and the assumption that this is all you read.......................is sadly just too ironic for birddog to see.

 

 

.

[birdog1960]

http://grist.org/series/skeptics/. asked and answered.

 

and b man, when are you going to provide that list of motivations for climate scientists to lie in unison? let me guess: it's a conspiracy to remove freedom from individuals and hand it over to national and even world governments., right? yeah, i'll bet that's it.

[3rdnlng]

It is not in climate scientists' best personal interest to declare MMGW false just as it was not in their interest to call MMGC false in the 60's and 70's. If and when MMGW is debunked there is no doubt in my mind that MMGC or some other calamity will come in vogue to keep the grant money flowing.

[birdog1960]

It is not in climate scientists' best personal interest to declare MMGW false just as it was not in their interest to call MMGC false in the 60's and 70's. If and when MMGW is debunked there is no doubt in my mind that MMGC or some other calamity will come in vogue to keep the grant money flowing.

oh, so it's the grant money! most of these folks spent at least 4 years post grad making peanuts for long hours and it never occurred to them during all those hours that what they were working on was complete bunk. they were bolstered throughout by the promise of huge grant dollars that would go to study the same bunk while they could ultimately expect middling personal salaries. no wonder they didn't choose investment banking or finance. there's no grant money there!

 

mmgc? is this what you mean? http://www.meltonmowbraygolfclub.com - looks ok but nothing all that special.

Edited May 17, 2014 by birdog1960

[Keukasmallies]

I believe the earth is getting warmer, and will for a while; then it will get cooler, and will for a while. What stumps me is why, 'cause I'm not buying most of the clap trap reasons out there now.

[Deranged Rhino]

That, and Abyssinia, and Nomohan, and the occupation of Bohemia and Moravia...all just OTAs, really.

 

That's why France lost. You don't skip OTAs.

 

:lol: That might be my favorite quote of yours yet. Well done.

[3rdnlng]

oh, so it's the grant money! most of these folks spent at least 4 years post grad making peanuts for long hours and it never occurred to them during all those hours that what they were working on was complete bunk. they were bolstered throughout by the promise of huge grant dollars that would go to study the same bunk while they could ultimately expect middling personal salaries. no wonder they didn't choose investment banking or finance. there's no grant money there!

 

mmgc? is this what you mean? http://www.meltonmowbraygolfclub.com - looks ok but nothing all that special.

 

No way, they welcome the public there. When I want to play me some golf, I take the limo over to Tasker's place and pick him up (sometimes I have to wait for him to fire a servant) and we fly off in my Gulfstream G650 to whatever destination we want. If we feel that we want to corner the market on pork bellies we might just fly to Augusta National since those plans are easy. If we want to plan a Higher Frequency Trading scheme we would most likely fly out to Pebble Beach where I have a home on 17 Mile Drive.

[Deranged Rhino]

I consider myself a conservative and I'm not wedded to my own climate change beliefs. The Climate Change industry simply hasn't come anywhere close to convincing me that climate change is a problem that we as humans can positively impact. My beliefs are that much greater natural forces are the key drivers to any slight climate variations that we are seeing. In other words, if we were to all stop burning things and we executed all the cattle on the globe, scientists would still measure climate variations over time and argue about it.

 

Now if the Federal Government wants to slowly move regulations in the direction of cleaner air and water in a way that doesn't cause economic harm or increase taxes and at the same time lessens our dependency on unfriendly foreign sources of energy, I'm on board.

 

I highlighted the bolded section because it's one of the most common refrains I hear from conservatives and I do not understand it completely. Let me explain.

 

I take that statement (and I could be completely incorrect, if so please elaborate) to mean that while you concede CH is real and happening, you do not believe that anything can be done to stop it. And the concern that usually follows such sentiments are ones worrying about the economic costs of trying to fix an unfixable problem. Naturally, most of the jobs in the high polluting sector are blue collar jobs -- jobs that would be threatened with regulations or any sort of over-correction. I can get behind the economic concerns, I understand where they are coming from and respect them.

 

But doesn't that just side-step the bigger issue? It's the same thing with the camps who argue about the cause of CH. You have some who are absolutely convinced it's caused by man and those who are absolutely convinced the science on that matter is entirely unconvincing; which ends up in both sides arguing about the cause while ignoring the reality. Cause is a secondary concern. Arguing about the cause does not provide the leadership needed to deal with what seems to be inevitable changes to our climate.

 

Make no mistake, as expensive and damaging as the economic policies of the eco-left would be on the country, doing nothing is even more lethal. If the seas rise, which they already are and that's proven, even 10 feet (a conservative estimate) over the next 100 years, that's going to cause massive issues both economically and socially not just here but across the globe. The overwhelming majority of Earth's population lives along coastlines. If those population centers are submerged, even partially, you're looking at massive forced migrations, economic turmoil, not to mention the expense of relocating / rebuilding / buffering our current cities and towns against rising waters.

 

This doesn't even factor in the other environmental problems that CH already is causing -- from severe droughts (California -- literally America's breadbasket is the driest it has been in history) to severe flooding (most of western Europe over the past few springs) -- these things will hit our food supplies, not to mention create a constant drain on the economy across the globe.

 

While those things are decades, if not centuries, away from happening, I do think that arguing over the cause, or remedies to the point of paralysis (which we've reached) is as deadly and economically damaging as doing nothing will be. By doing something I am not talking about simply taking carbon cutting measures or preventive actions that have no realistic shot of helping -- but doing practical things like repairing and strengthening our coastal cities and infrastructure. Investing money now into preparing our country for a changing global climate is not an over-reaction, it's a necessity. Conservatives are always harping on the deficit and debt and how we aren't being responsible stewards for the future generations -- why can't that same thinking be applied to this issue?

 

Climate change is the biggest threat facing our species as a whole -- besides maybe the threat of hashtags. Not a threat to just our country -- a threat to our entire species. Arguing over the causes accomplishes nothing. Arguing over whether or not it's actually happening despite the mountains of evidence that prove it is, is lethal.

 

%My2Cents

Edited May 17, 2014 by GreggyT