Scientists Call AP Report on Global Warming 'Hysteria' (greenhouse gases, environmental, energy)

[CometVoyager]

Originally Posted by alexanderaf

It's silly to think that burning 83,000,000 barrels of oil a day would have any effect on our planet.

I totally agree, as burning 83 millions barrels of oil each day has no significant impact upon the Earth's Climate as it can be further explained why by understanding the Law of Thermodynamics. Furthermore, we need to keep burning fossil fuels to insure the CO2 replacement of all the Critters we kill each day on land and in the oceans. We have severely depleted our oceans of trillions of CO2 producers only to satiate our pallets!

[CometVoyager]

Originally Posted by SCGranny

But what about... the fact that while Arctic ice is shrinking, ANTarctic ice is growing?

Sorry but I think that our economy and lobbyists are driving a lot of this 'global warming' hype. I am very familiar with the 'carbon credit' scam that is going to grow exponentially under the new presidency - the 'green jobs' Obama has promised. This is how it works -

You own a large company that by dint of your existence, pollutes - say, you own UPS, with all of those brown vehicles that spews out carbon every single day. I own a large farm. I have common sense so I practice things like rotational grazing, no-till farming, etc. to keep my land from being over-grazed or the soil depleted. The gubbermint is mad at you because you are a polluter (durn you you evil CEO you). So along comes a very creative fella, called a carbon credit broker. He sends representatives out to my farm to see how many acres on which I have responsible farming methods. Then he sends a representative to YOU, and tells you that I am 'banking carbon credits' that you can buy. This carbon credit broker then PAYS ME from the money you give him to buy carbon credits so you can continue to run your trucks, and takes 10% off the top for his own company. Everybody's happy - I am happy because some fool city boy is giving me money for what I am doing ANYWAY, you are happy because for a little extra money (that you can charge off to your customers) you can be green, the broker is happy because he is getting "his money for nothing and his checks for free", and de gubbermint is happy because it looks on their balance sheets like everyone is doing something for the carbon emissions. Scam? How dare I say such a thing?

Everyone's employed, everyone gets money, and everyone feels all better about themselves for doing something to help the environment. Yay. High fives all around.

Fools, I tell ya. FOOLS.

SCGranny, you have a fantastic mind! What happened to the rest of the country! Why can't they all have at least 10% of your insight? God Save the USA! We are in for a real rocky ride these next 4 years.

[Captain Worley]

The selling of carbon credits is quite like the selling of Indulgences practiced by the Catholic church hundreds of years ago.

[TexasHorseLady]

Yes, my husband was pointing out just that comparison last week. Remarkably similar.

[evilnewbie]

Originally Posted by Captain Worley

The selling of carbon credits is quite like the selling of Indulgences practiced by the Catholic church hundreds of years ago.

So true.. the rich cats can't get your money by you spending on them... they decide to add a special tax on you so that you have to pay them no matter what... what a brilliant scheme to rob from the middle class! You get a rep! I can't wait for more global warming... its freaking unnaturally cold over here as well as... everywhere else... that is unless people think burning 83 million barrels of oil creates COLD instead of heat... I am sure some twisted logic will try to connect the two... unfortunately bunk is still bunk...

[PNW-type-gal]

Originally Posted by SCGranny

But what about... the fact that while Arctic ice is shrinking, ANTarctic ice is growing?

Except that Antarctic ice is NOT growing. One of the three measurement areas has grown, but the other two are shrinking faster than the one is growing.

[Kracer]

The acid test or 'red faced' test for human caused global warming is when proponents begin to stifle discussion.

Science like law is a living body of premise that has to be constantly challenged. If your side cuts off discussion......... BEWARE!!!! Especially when it is the 'science' that must not be challenged.

Scientific findings are relative to the moment and form a reference point to move the body of knowledge forward. Without challenge and testing as per the 'scientific method', there is no science.
Consensus among mainstream researchers does not imply absolute truth either.
Throw in all the junk science, figure in economic bias and you are left with what Charlie down at the Gulf station said to be the truth.

Scientists/ researchers can't even agree on what the food pyramid should look like. When you deal more with theory than practicality it is easier to defend your premise because you relaize science is mere tool used to sway perception. Otherwise if science were the be all end all eveyone would be wearing a seatbelt and no one would be smoking.

Research and statistics produce momentary facts which require interpretation as well as promotion. Things get a bit artsy when it comes to interpretating 'facts'. So beware the next time a doc interprets your echocardiogram or x-ray.

[delusianne]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

This is why I trust very little that comes out of the media, overhyped is too small a word to say the least. As I see it you cannot trust anything reported in the media. They report bad news and that is it and apprently in this case the "jouranalist" is making stuff up...


FOXNews.com - Scientists Call AP Report on Global Warming 'Hysteria' - Science News | Science & Technology | Technology News

But you're trusting the Fox article, the purpose of which is to knock down the AP article.

[SCGranny]

Good posts.
I think what concerns me is that the proliferation of 'junk science' has been made more prevalent by govenment invovement. "Solving for X" used to be a challenge of forming a hypothesis, and then testing the theory, utilizing all available data, keeping precise and accurate records, utilizing control data, and then reaching a conclusion based solely on the test results. Sometimes resolutions were reached that were not wanted - but these were accurately charted, too. Scientists and researchers who followed would be aware of the 'failures' and knew not to make the same mistakes - but a lot of new discoveries came out of those failures, like rubber!

Nowadays, though, people are paid to find the "X" that everyone wants, and to manipulate their studies to accommodate the desires of the funder. My daughter, a biologist, was performing research at her college and described the involvement of the government in their projects. She and several other budding researchers, as well as their professor, insisted that the research be pure and that whatever conclusions they reached must be accurate, since their names were on them... whether or not they suited the funder's desires. The funder (government) cancelled the research's funding to fund another similar project at another University where the researchers were more 'amenable'. This happens all too frequently, and not just in government funding, but private funding in research on drugs and other cures as well. So whom do we believe, when money talks and pure research falls by the wayside in the quest for grants, tenure, and 15 minutes of fame?

[CleanCutHippie]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

That's the hardest question to answer of all and unfortunately for us the general public we have to make our own judgments. Despite the "Science is apolitical" mantra that is far from the case and that of course would apply to both sides of an issue especially where you have one as politically charged as this. I'm sure you can look up the names of the scientists in the Fox article and find many reasons as to why their opinion may be biased but the same is true of the scientist mentioned on the other side of the issue. The original article from the AP quotes a bunch of politicians with the exception of one scientist which by the blurb on her university page could certainly be looked at as bias.

Scientist without an agenda or can't be bought and sold are the ones we need to hear from but I'd venture to guess we never will because their opinions will never see the light of day either by their own choice or becuse they will simply be ignored.

My point is the media is not only feeding the public one side of this debate but is also exaggerating or printing outright lies. If you follow the original article you'll find that much of it is not attributed to any particular scientist or study but the words of the author and they are stated as fact. This is a disservice to the public no matter which side of this debate you are on. We need real information getting to the public and not the bias opion of some reporter that is spinning facts or wrtiing things that fit his/her own agenda.

I agree. For me with all the man made chemichals, all the cars on the road producing carbon monoxide I cant imagine we are not doing damage beyond just our earth. Just my common sense opinion.