The Problem with AGW…

This nonsensical reversal of the "normal" denier mantra would be funny if it were not so hysterical. The "usual" assertion is that since a magazine (NOT scientists) in the seventies predicted an imminent Ice Age, and warming has occurred, then GW has been chosen to differentiate from that! Where is this new cooling trend?

 

The Bush White House made the deliberate decision to call it "Climate change", not the scientists. Scientists have always simply called it what it is, "Global Warming". Republican policy guru Frank Luntz proudly admits he instituted the Bush White House program to change the name to "Climate Change". Watch him say so on the video here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mqMunulJU7w

There is no cooling trend, and anyone who says there is a cooling trend is either deluded or dishonest.

Poor WPA1. He probably doesn't even understand he's repeating falsehoods. For example, look at this thread. Only two people used the term "Climate Change", and both did not accept that there was a human influence on global warming. It is overwhelmingly the denier side that uses the term "Climate Change".

 

This sounds like right-wing conjecture to me. Do you have anything at all to back up these claims? I agree with Colonel K's post.

 

denialists are not sceptics.

a sceptic would at least equally doubt the information presented by fossil fuel funded think tanks, and would look at the scientific information that is available. They would certainly not subscribe to conspiracy theories as denialists tend to.

a sceptic would by now be coming around to the idea that there is something in AGW theory, as the evidence mounts, even if they may not fully accept it.

 

Ye Gads! How DARE Editors of serious science journals refuse to publish uneducated drivel from some anonymous blogger who's sole rantings consist of "I don fink its happenin so it kant be"

Show me where this has happened in reality to a serious scientist who has good and valid research

 

My problem isn't with the science of AGW.

It is with the ignorant and self-destructive solutions offered up to fix it.

Better to do nothing than cripple the Western Economy in a false effort to do something about it while China and Asia spew their poisons into the air and laugh while dominating our economies.

Unless the entire Western World is ready to impose stiff sanctions and cut off trade with Asia unless they clean up their act, there is no point in crippling our economies. China is not interested in "following our example".

 

No, it is more interested in leading the way

America is now rapidly being left behind and most of it because of sheer ignorance of the population who confuse science with engineering and politics

 

It doesn't matter what GW believers are shown. If it is skeptical of their climate dogma, it is not considered 'valid.'

 

Proof please!!

 

Yes...and the reason for 'ignorant and self-destructive solutions' is because AGW is still an unproven hypothesis and, there has been 0 climate experimentation to PROVE it is happening in the first place but, AGW is a low-hanging ripe fruit that politicians pick in order to scare folks into dumping their hard-earned money into costly, government-based futile 'solutions.'

 

Are you kidding me? One need only look at the environmental threads on this Forum to see the Warmist-religion on full display as they dismiss any skepticism out-of-hand.

Their excuses include, but are not limited to, supposed 'biased' links, characterizing anyone who disagrees with their warmist religion as kooks, claiming that 'big oil' is somehow behind skepticism, claiming that the science is 'settled' when AGW and even GW are still only hypotheses and generally being insulting to those that disagree with them.

 

<<<Mod Edit: Personal Attack Removed>>>

Clean energy creates 3 times more jobs then fossil fuels, while costing half of what fossil fuels cost.
So only a fool would say that more jobs and less money wasted would cripple an economy

 

There reason we dismiss all "skepticism" is because all global warming skeptics refuse to accept basic science and reality.
A perfect exaple is your psot right here. YOur post is made by some one who is either a lying partisan hack or someone whose been brainwashed. So which are you?

 

which explains all those employees working busily over at Solyndra....oh wait!



and I suppose it explains why unemployment is so high since Obama and the Progressives have started their push for 'green jobs'

 

Excellent post.

This is indeed how the AGW disciples operate.

Their minds are made up and they refuse to accept any evidence or opinions contrary to their religion.

 

Utterly false. Valid research from skeptical researchers is published all the time in peer reviewed journals. And about 50 times more valid research showing that the skeptics are wrong is also published.

That's why there's a 98% concensus that global warming is real, and we're causing it.

 

I don't dismiss skeptics out of hand. I dismiss them because in every case I've looked at, they're ignoring something important. Like conservation of energy, or conservation of matter. Details like that.

 

Look if you want to convince anyone (other than brainwashed sheeple) that GW/AGW is a certain fact then please show us your empirical, repetitive experimentation where you were able to affect the climate in certain ways and have absolutely outlined the exact mechanisms by which the global climate works. Then you should be able to predict future catastrophic climactic events so we can all see that your not just blowing smoke.

 

No, its you who doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. <<<Mod Edit: Personal Attack Removed>>>

I'm sure the Spaniards are thrilled with thier '3 green jobs for every 1 fossil' that is such bull (*)(*)(*)(*)!

Green Energy = Solyndra = BIG FAIL wherever it is tried.

I, as a taxpayer, have zero interest in subsidizing experiments in green energy. If the free market cannot create it, then we don't need it.

 

I do read the newspaper. But I don't listen to FOX News.

I assume you're referring to this study, prominently played up on -- you guessed it -- FOX News, in spite of the fact that it was not peer-reviewed.

Well, when you've got a non-peer-reviewed study, funded by the oil industry, is it any surprise that the report is total junk? That it understates the number of jobs created by a factor of 3? That's it's been totally debunked?

Oddly enough, FOX News didn't cover the debunking. I wonder why that is?

Then how do you explain this?


... and this?


I bet you didn't see those numbers on FOX News, did you?

 

So, nearly every other country in the world is actually making money on some aspect of alternate energy production - the only ones who have failed seem to be one company in the USA

 

Let's get some perspective here. A nuclear power plant produces an average of 2,000 megawatts of power. 15 nuclear plants (more or less) will produce the same amount of electrical power as all those windmills...and....with much less maintenance, landscape blight, bird kills and significantly less environmental noise. Also, nuclear power plants operate when the wind doesn't blow.

Your graphs only show windmills compared to windmills. That's like comparing two turtles in a turtle race and saying the one that won is faster than any other animal.

 

So you're demanding we affect the world climate by doing a scientific experiment?

Tiny problem with that -- you can't produce gigatons of CO2 in an experiment. Meaning such an experiment is impossible to do. And even if you did, it would destroy the baseline, making multiple such experiments are impossible. There's only one earth.

One of the hallmarks of a cultist doing junk science is how they'll set the rules so that their junk science is literally impossible to disprove. As you just did. Thus, you demonstrate how you're a cultist spouting junk science.

Now, here on the rational side, I can point out it's easy to disprove AGW. Just show that, over the long term (a decade is fine) that the temperature is not increasing. Or show that the heat balance of the planet is not now more-in-than-out. Or a number of other things.

See, that's how science works. The AGW side made predictions, those predictions came true, and thus the AGW side has credibility. Starting from nothing, way before your side politicized everything, the AGW side busted their butt proving their case.

We earned our credibility. You don't get to have the same cred just because you whine a lot. If you want similar credibility, you have to go out on a limb, write a theory, make some predictions, see the predictions come true. You know, like the AGW side has done, over and over.

Please write your theories and predictions here. If you can't ... well, everyone will know what that means.

 

And what are you going to do with the waste from that plant? Can we put it in your backyard?

 

There is less waste and it is less radioactive by volume than coal waste and yes..You can store it in my backyard. Just send your tax dollars.