NO 'Consensus' on "Man-Made" Global Warming (Byrd, March, compare)

[Poptech]

Originally Posted by fishmonger

So... not only are you inundated by WorldNetDaily/talk radio propaganda, but you're also a conspiracy theorist?

There is no conspiracy, it is what they really believe. I don't believe in any conspiracy theories (911 Truth, JFK ect..). Have you actually talked to the activists pushing this? Do they believe in free market economics or government control? Do the group thinkers push AGW or are they skeptical. Ask them if they are pro or anti-capitalist.

I am sorry to break it to you but neither WorldNetDaily or the "Talk Radio" you are refering to "feature propaganda". You seem to like to make ridiculous statements you cannot back up. Repeating something does not make it reality.

[Poptech]

Originally Posted by bily4

Iknow, I know, that is why I said if you have a problem with the wiki go ahead and correct it. I didn't feel like trolling for the original sources. Forget Kyoto for a second... that was put together before China became a manufacturing global power. If we agree on a treaty today it will be updated and modified, and of course China would be included in the verbiage. You will note China also was trying to downplay the language of the scientists.

If your contention then is China and India are the ones purposefully influencing the verbiage of the report so they can tie up the U.S. and gain an unfair competitive advantage, I think that is a little farfetched and unrealistic. I am sure a global environmental agreement would include these countries.

"Correcting" Wikipedia is NOT possible since the information that remains will always be based on mod rule not fact. If you want to learn what is going on then you will need to use better sources then Wikipedia.

Then please inform me of this other treaty that involves China and India equal with the US. I am begining to see an idealistic trend of people not being informed about what is going on.

Regardless the IPCC is a politically motivated body controlled by the UN. They have a wonderful track record with things like human rights:

The Shame of the United Nations (The New York Times)

[bily4]

Originally Posted by Poptech

"Correcting" Wikipedia is NOT possible since the information that remains will always be based on mod rule not fact. If you want to learn what is going on then you will need to use better sources then Wikipedia.

Then please inform me of this other treaty that involves China and India equal with the US. I am begining to see an idealistic trend of people not being informed about what is going on.

Regardless the IPCC is a politically motivated body controlled by the UN. They have a wonderful track record with things like human rights:

The Shame of the United Nations (The New York Times)

Aargh. OK. Here is the original source then about China and the US both wanting to tone down the scientists' verbiage.

U.S., China Got Climate Warnings Toned Down - washingtonpost.com

Again, Kyoto was put together in 1997. You do understand China as a low cost center for manufacturing was just starting up back then. I am saying of course China will now be included in any global warming discussions and will be expected to follow the direction of the international community. You see the black eyes they are getting due to quality and chemicals in their products today. It would not be in their commercial interests to be seen as the global renegade. China is not the only low cost country we can use for manufacturing.

China's President has publicly voiced his support for Kyoto. If the US as the global leader in emissions joins the other 141 countries that have signed, the pressure will then be on China to follow suit. China is now using us as the excuse not to do more. It still stands to reason though that the Chinese would overall want to limit the alarmism. Why do they want more attention to their questionable manufacturing processes then they are getting already?

I still don't see who people think are pulling the strings over at the UN to create this "political alarmist conpiracy". It seems from what I read the politicians are all collectively trying to diminish the global warming scare of the scientific community.

[Poptech]

Originally Posted by bily4

Aargh. OK. Here is the original source then about China and the US both wanting to tone down the scientists' verbiage.

U.S., China Got Climate Warnings Toned Down - washingtonpost.com

Again, Kyoto was put together in 1997. You do understand China as a low cost center for manufacturing was just starting up back then. I am saying of course China will now be included in any global warming discussions and will be expected to follow the direction of the international community. You see the black eyes they are getting due to quality and chemicals in their products today. It would not be in their commercial interests to be seen as the global renegade. China is not the only low cost country we can use for manufacturing.

China's President has publicly voiced his support for Kyoto. If the US as the global leader in emissions joins the other 141 countries that have signed, the pressure will then be on China to follow suit. China is now using us as the excuse not to do more. It still stands to reason though that the Chinese would overall want to limit the alarmism. Why do they want more attention to their questionable manufacturing processes then they are getting already?

I still don't see who people think are pulling the strings over at the UN to create this "political alarmist conpiracy". It seems from what I read the politicians are all collectively trying to diminish the global warming scare of the scientific community.

China doesn't care what you think of them or the international community and will do whatever they want. HAHA of course China supports Kyoto since it does not effect them but puts restrictions on their competitors!

Are you serious? China is going to do something because the US does it first? Man are you naive:

China rejects binding targets on greenhouse emissions (Forbes)

Lets forget the fact that Kyoto is pointless and useless:


Economist Bjorn Lomborg: Global warming is not a priority (Video) (17min)
Global Warming not a Cost-effective Target (Competitive Enterprise Institute)
Greens Concede Kyoto Will Not Impact 'Global Warming' (broken link) (CNSNews)
Kyoto Count Up! (Junk Science)
Kyoto projects harm ozone layer: U.N. official (Reuters)
Kyoto would cost a million Euro jobs, 80 billion euros by 2010 (broken link) (National Business Review)
Lessons of Kyoto (Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology)
The Fatal Conceit of Kyoto (The Frasier Institute)
The Kyoto Protocol and Global Warming (broken link) (PDF) (Sallie Baliunas, Ph.D. Astrophysics, Harvard)



Truth about Kyoto: huge profits, little carbon saved (The Guardian, UK)

Again there is no "conspiracy" there is instead a mindset of beliefs that is socialist in nature. There is no organized plot. This is what they believe. If you said all the evangelicals in the U.S. wanted the whole country to be Christian only and pushed for it for 50 years would that be a conspiracy or what they believe?

Those who are pushing this believe we pollute in excess and are harming the planet, they think driving SUVs is bad and Oil is evil ect... They believe the cause of the problem is Capitalism and a Socialist structure could fix it.

Now maybe you need to go talk more to the people making these alarmist positions.

[fishmonger]

Scientists, you mean? What is it about climatology that causes its studiers to hold such radical Marxist views, I wonder? Maybe they're against saying that individual storms should take "personal responsibility" for their individual destruction and instead emphasize "social justice" for the smaller storms that don't quite achieve their potential, and end up having shorter lives? Perhaps many a paper has been written in the annals of climate science decrying the oppression of tornadoes by their powerful hurricane cousins and the "stifling of weather democracy" by the inequities in direction and cloud availability? Did you know that 54% of the world's rainclouds are forced to operate on only 2 pounds of humidity a DAY, while a mere 1% of the larger and more powerful "developed, first-world clouds" hoard tons and tons of humidity without ever giving it back to cloud society? Disgraceful.

[Poptech]

Originally Posted by fishmonger

Scientists, you mean? What is it about climatology that causes its studiers to hold such radical Marxist views, I wonder? Maybe they're against saying that individual storms should take "personal responsibility" for their individual destruction and instead emphasize "social justice" for the smaller storms that don't quite achieve their potential, and end up having shorter lives? Perhaps many a paper has been written in the annals of climate science decrying the oppression of tornadoes by their powerful hurricane cousins and the "stifling of weather democracy" by the inequities in direction and cloud availability?

How many scientists have you seen in the media promoting this issue?

You realize we are talking about the IPCC, the U.N. and the Politicians behind it.

[fishmonger]

Mostly the skeptical/denier ones who get far more media/air time since they're "rebels who buck the trend," especially on Fox, talk radio, etc. The other ones seem to keep to themselves and do their research.

[Poptech]

Originally Posted by fishmonger

Mostly the skeptical/denier ones who get far more media/air time since they're "rebels who buck the trend," especially on Fox, talk radio, etc. The other ones seem to keep to themselves and do their research.

I see you continue with you propaganda of calling skeptical scientists deniers. It is really pathetic but you just proved my point. To promote global warming alarmism we see:

Al Gore, B.A. Government (no higher degree achieved, no science degree)
Robert F. Kennedy Jr, B.A. Government, J.D. Law (no science degree, 'recovered' Heroin addict)

Celebrities:
Alanis Morissette, High School Diploma
Alicia Keys, College Dropout
Alicia Silverstone, High School Dropout
Art Bell, College Dropout
Ben Affleck, College Dropout
Ben Stiller, College Dropout
Bill Maher, B.A. English (no science degree)
Billy Jean King, College Dropout
Bono (Paul Hewson), High School Diploma
Brad Pitt, College Dropout
Cameron Diaz, High School Dropout
Daryl Hanna, B.F.A. Theater (no science degree)
Diane Keaton, College Dropout
Drew Barrymore, High School Dropout
Ed Begley Jr., High School Diploma
George Clooney, College Dropout
Gwyneth Paltrow, College Dropout
Jackson Browne, High School Diploma
Jason Biggs, College Dropout
John Travolta, High School Dropout
Jon Bon Jovi (John Bongiovi), High School Diploma
Joshua Jackson, High School Dropout
Julia Louis-Dreyfus, College Dropout
Julia Roberts, College Dropout
Keanu Reeves, High School Dropout
Kevin Bacon, High School Dropout
Kiefer Sutherland, High School Dropout
Leonardo DiCaprio, High School Dropout
Madonna (Madonna Ciccone), College Dropout
Matt Damon, College Dropout
Michael Moore, College Dropout
Nicole Richie, College Dropout
Olivia Newton-John, High School Dropout
Oprah Winfrey, B.A. Speech and Drama (no science degree)
Orlando Bloom, High School Dropout, B.A. Drama (no science degree)
Paris Hilton, High School Dropout
Pierce Brosnan. High School Dropout
Queen Latifah (Dana Elaine Owens), College Dropout
Richard Branson, High School Dropout
Robert Redford, College Dropout
Rosie O'Donnell, College Dropout
Sarah Silverman, College Dropout
Sean Penn, College Dropout
Sheryl Crow, B.A. Music Education (no science degree)
Sienna Miller, High School Diploma
Willie Nelson, High School Dropout + College Dropout

The reason is because there is NO 'Consensus' on "Man-Made" Global Warming.

Least of all the Alarmism promoted by Gore:

From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype (The New York Times)
Al Gore Is a Greenhouse Gasbag (http://www.phillymag.com/articles/science_al_gore_is_a_greenhouse_gasbag/ - broken link) (Robert Giegengack, Ph.D. Geology)
The Good News Bears (The New York Times)
Liberal Transit; Those Democrats and Their Private Jets (The New York Times)
Greenland’s Glaciers Take a Breather (The New York Times)

[TXboomerang]

Originally Posted by fishmonger

Mostly the skeptical/denier ones who get far more media/air time since they're "rebels who buck the trend," especially on Fox, talk radio, etc. The other ones seem to keep to themselves and do their research.

Actually, ONLY on Fox and talk radio do they get more media air time. And even at that, Bill O'Reilly does not oppose the alarmist and neither does Shepard Smith. ABC is the only public airwave tv station that acknowledges there are people who don't follow suit with Al Gore and his buddies. And thats only because they keep John Stossel hanging around.

All the morning shows are REGULAR greenie freak lovers as far as the alphabet channels. Lump in The Weather Channel as a full fledged cheerleader of global warming alarmism, along with MSNBC and CNN.

[fishmonger]

See... I don't know. To me it seems like when the stations report on the "it's happening" people it's always activists, Al Gore, politicians, etc. And when they bring in the skeptical cause it's always the two-or-three well-publicized "scientists," or this or that famous meteorologist who isn't really an authority on climate but that everyone has watched predict the local weather since they were kids, so they think, "this guy really knows what he's talking about," as opposed to presenting the "skeptic" side with Neil Boortz or Senator Inhofe or Ted Nugent. Maybe it's just me. The minority of skeptical scientists seem to be a lot more out looking to get attention for their cause than the scientists who work more within the "consensus." The internet is flooded with their blogs, "research surveys" done for right-wing think tanks, etc.