The ethical question no climate denier will answer

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by Poor Debater, May 27, 2013.

  1. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0

    At what point did it become ethically acceptable to perform an irreversible experiment on the only atmosphere we've got?
     
  2. wyly

    wyly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    13,857
    Likes Received:
    1,159
    Trophy Points:
    113
    and ironically the people who hate/fear change the most (the far right), are okay with changing the atmosphere...
     
  3. Not Amused

    Not Amused New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Was it climate deniers that put a tariff on solar panels - the only near term solution.

    Was it climate deniers that stopped nuclear power plants in the past, or prevent them now?

    Is it climate deniers that are slowing the deployment of wind power?

    Are climate deniers outlawing alternative energy research? Mandating lowering efficiency? Outlawing hybrid and plug in electric cars?

    Just how are your so called climate deniers preventing you from solving your perceived problem?
     
  4. stretch351c

    stretch351c New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2011
    Messages:
    979
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Of course, there is no verifiable proof that man is having any significant effect on the climate.
     
  5. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thanks, guys, for proving me right.
     
  6. stretch351c

    stretch351c New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2011
    Messages:
    979
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So proving you wrong means you're right? I guess that passes for warmer logic.
     
  7. Not Amused

    Not Amused New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    They wonder why we aren't willing to allocate hundreds of billions a year so they can play "lets save the world". Something like a reasonable plan of action eludes them.
     
  8. stretch351c

    stretch351c New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2011
    Messages:
    979
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why should billions be spent on something we aren't doing?
     
  9. Not Amused

    Not Amused New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I have no problem converting to a CO2 neutral fuel, that costs the same, or less, than the equivalent fossil fuel. Cost, includes infrastructure and existing equipment (cars, planes, and power plants) and recovery on investment.

    Oil from algae would be a drop in replacement for transportation fuel (feeding the refineries), but the required breakthrough hasn't been made. Nor, are there the breakthroughs in sources of electricity.
     
  10. Anders Hoveland

    Anders Hoveland Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,044
    Likes Received:
    138
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I object to many of the so-called "solutions" being forced on us by global warming alarmists.
    Invasive solutions that reduce quality of life and give us inferior machines and home appliances that do not work as well.

    Toilets that do not flush away the brown smears, shower faucets that frustrating just do not provide quite enough water, light bulbs with bad light (not to mention all the UV radiation the spiral ones emit) :angered:
    All being FORCED on us.
     
  11. goober

    goober New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2008
    Messages:
    6,057
    Likes Received:
    48
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes, there is no proof, only the data that suggests that it's happening, until the temperature is higher and the coasts under water there won't be "proof".
     
  12. goober

    goober New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2008
    Messages:
    6,057
    Likes Received:
    48
    Trophy Points:
    0
    None of it is being "forced" on you.
    You can still find toilets that use 7 gallons per flush.
    You can still find Air conditioners that are filled with freon.
    You can still find 100 watt light bulbs.
    You just have to look a little harder.
    I mean, if not having it in Walmart is "forcing" you to do something you don't wan't to do, then you really don't want the old style toilet that badly.....
     
  13. wist43

    wist43 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2010
    Messages:
    3,285
    Likes Received:
    1,313
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In order for you to have "proof", you would need empirical data that supports the theory, and falsifiable experimentation - you have neither.

    When Mann came out with his hockey stick fraud, he refused to share his methodology - that's not science. When at long last it was falsified by McIntyre the fraudsters circled the wagons, rigged the peer review process, attacked anyone who didn't fall in line, and rubber stamped the hockey stick as gospel.

    And so it goes with the fraudsters - what Mann did with the hockey stick is standard operating procedure for alarmist "science". And why not, pots of gold at the end of those rainbows...

    I love this quote by alarmist Dr. Ryan Maue, "... the atmosphere is on steroids, and we need to spend a lot of money to do something about it now." Translation?? Back a Brinks truck up to my lab door please, LOL... therein lies the motive for some - money. This is the same Ryan Maue who burned a Skeptic book on campus - a little Fahrenheit 451 never hurt anyone, huh??

    And what of the respected Dr. Peter Gleick?? Engages in criminal activity, and plants lies in the name of smearing the Heartland Institute... how proud the Pacific Institute must have been to welcome him back with open arms - such an honorable scientist.

    Book burning, criminal activities, rigging the review process, and money, money, money... yes, the hallmarks of science ;)
     
  14. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We have both. Of course you've never heard about it, because it's not reported on Fox News.

    Utterly false. MBH 98 had a large section called "Methods", which you would have known if you had actually read the paper. MBH 99 had a section called "Data and Method" which you would have know if you had actual read that paper. It is therefore clear you have actually read neither paper.

    Which means that someone's been lying to you. I wonder why.

    It was? This was the same McIntyre paper that was itself falsified by Wahl & Amman? The same McIntyre paper that claimed top 1% selected data was "random" data? That's what you're hanging your hat on?

    Please point out one instance of a rigged peer review process. Please point out one instance of a scientist being attacked by another scientist who didn't "fall in line". Please point out one instance of science being "rubber stamped." Oh, what the hell: please point out one piece of evidence that anything you've said has one shred of truth in it.

    So when McIntyre is invited to speak for the (oil-funded) CEI and the Marshall Institute, with doubless large honoraria involved, that doesn't disturb you one bit?

    The same Ryan Maue who posts on Watts Up With That? Sorry, dude, that's one of yours.

    Clearly not, since he has never been indicted, much less convicted, of anything.

    It doesn't take Gleick to smear the Heartland Institute, they do a much better job of smearing themselves.
     
  15. Roy L

    Roy L Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    11,345
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The existence of fossil fuels proves that burning them is not an "irreversible experiment."

    Class dismissed.
     
  16. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well I for one would like to reverse it. Please explain how to do that.
     
  17. gslack

    gslack New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2013
    Messages:
    306
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    When did it become ethically acceptable to "hide the decline"? How about exaggerate claims? Proclaim every bit of warm current weather conditions proof of global warming, but at the same time proclaim any cooler current weather conditions as not indicative of climate? How about proclaiming every severe storm as proof of global warming? Every drought? Famine? And virtually everything else you can think of has been attributed to global warming, connections so ridiculous and so obscure, it's utterly amazing they can even call themselves men of science.

    Now please tell me when it became ethically or even morally acceptable to do that?

    On a personal note, why is the ridiculous and tedious citing of every sentence tolerated?
     
  18. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's not ethically acceptable. Which is why no decline was ever hidden, at least in the scientific literature.

    Also not ethically acceptable. Which is why absolutely true statements, such as that climate change is partly responsible for floods, droughts, and heat waves, generally come from scientists, while exaggerated claims -- such as that climate change is entirely responsible for those things -- turn out to be very hard to actually find, and not said by scientists when you do find one.

    Because most people are more tolerant that you are.

    I notice, by the way, that you avoided answering my question. As I predicted you would.
     
  19. gslack

    gslack New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2013
    Messages:
    306
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Now your editing quotes? Nice... Your playing a silly game that won't go well...

    So you can't answer for the behavior of your side of the debate got it, thanks..
     
  20. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And you don't have a single documented shred of evidence of bad behavior. Got it, thanks.
     
  21. gslack

    gslack New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2013
    Messages:
    306
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You just edited a quote attributed to me. It's right there.. See it?

    You cut out half my quote from the middle. If that's not editing a quote I don't know what is...

    Evidence? LOL, okay..

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/21/cooks-97-consensus-study-falsely-classifies-scientists-papers-according-to-the-scientists-that-published-them/

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/05/31/sorry-global-warming-alarmists-the-earth-is-cooling/

    heres some dandy quotes from some of the alarmists themselves...

    "We need to get some broad based support,
    to capture the public's imagination...
    So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
    make simplified, dramatic statements
    and make little mention of any doubts...
    Each of us has to decide what the right balance
    is between being effective and being honest."
    - Prof. Stephen Schneider,
    Stanford Professor of Climatology,
    lead author of many IPCC reports

    "We've got to ride this global warming issue.
    Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
    we will be doing the right thing in terms of
    economic and environmental policy."
    - Timothy Wirth,
    President of the UN Foundation

    "No matter if the science of global warming is all phony...
    climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
    bring about justice and equality in the world."
    - Christine Stewart,
    former Canadian Minister of the Environment

    “The data doesn't matter. We're not basing our recommendations
    on the data. We're basing them on the climate models.”
    - Prof. Chris Folland,
    Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

    “The models are convenient fictions
    that provide something very useful.”
    - Dr David Frame,
    climate modeler, Oxford University

    "I believe it is appropriate to have an 'over-representation' of the facts
    on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience."
    - Al Gore,
    Climate Change activist

    And there are a lot more examples here

    We can go on all day with this...
     
  22. Not Amused

    Not Amused New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There are two ways to reverse the experiment.

    1. Come up with CO2 neutral, cost neutral, 100% replacements for oil and coal, immediately.
    2. Stop burning all fossil fuels and let ~6 billion people starve to death, along with all the animals we have raised as food and pets. Of course, as they starve anything edible will be consumed, so most of the plants and animals will be gone, and the methane from decomposing bodies will increase the green house gas load.
     
  23. MannieD

    MannieD New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,127
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You left out the last line: "I hope that means being both." Rather dishonest of you, isn't it?
     
  24. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That won't remove the CO2 we've already put into the air. Fail.

    That won't remove the CO2 we've already put into the air. Fail.
     
  25. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So you don't like quote editing? Then why are you practicing it yourself? Like in this case, here's the complete quote, with the very important stuff you left off in boldface:

    "We need to get some broad based support,
    to capture the public's imagination...
    So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
    make simplified, dramatic statements
    and make little mention of any doubts...
    Each of us has to decide what the right balance
    is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."
    - Prof. Stephen Schneider,
    Stanford Professor of Climatology

    Gee, you don't like quote editing ... and here you edit out the most important part of Schneider's quote, in a way that changes its meaning entirely.
     

Share This Page