The Great Global Warming Swindle

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by foxtrot

The actual electric bill (cant whine about conservative reporting)
http://www.news2wkrn.com/goreelectricbill.pdf

Regardless of where the power is drawn, 1KWH of "green power" used at house A is 1KWH of "green power" that cannot be used at house B.

He seems so genuinly worried, and again - $30,000 in utility bills and a 10,000 sf house has no motivation in raising thousands of dollars for yourself in a scare campaign. Hes just such a nice guy that hes doing you a favor to pay him to tell you why hes doing you a favor.

---

The lazy greed, selfishness and fear of inconvenience of many Americans is manifest in the this argument about Gore’s electric bill.

Gore is a hypocrite for using too much power. Carter is a laughing stock for turning down the heat in the White House and wearing sweaters. I guess no matter what one does, they will be dragged down by small minds, interested in their own convenience.

The simple fact of the matter is this: The Tragedy of the Commons dictates group action or tragedy. One man can do nothing good if his slack will be taken up by another bad man. All men must agree to protect the limited resource together. It’s the social contract. It’s the “enlightenment” in enlightened self interest. It’s the “properly understood” in self-interest properly understood.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gman

Pardon me, Mr. Gore, but true "science" is not based on "consensus".

---

That is the most intelligent thing said on this thread. The problem is, true science demonstrates global warming and man's contribution to it. It's those SUV drivers who want to vote on it. They know they will win because it would be inconenient to do anything about it. They have no faith in the ability of their vaunted economy to grow in response to a problem. They are more inclined the "sky is falling" argument if they have to actually grow, change, and progress.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Recon

If you don’t think a small change in temperature matters, then just move north to the perma frost country and watch your house sink. Try hunting polar bears in 50 years.

Always remember who funds the mass media “experiments” you got suckered into.

---

Who got suckered?

Quote:

---

Interestingly, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), an international organization that has worked for 50 years to protect endangered species, has also written on the threats posed to polar bears from global warming. However, their own research seems to undermine their fears. According to the WWF, about 20 distinct polar bear populations exist, accounting for approximately 22,000 polar bears worldwide. As the figure shows, population patterns do not show a temperature-linked decline:

Only two of the distinct population groups, accounting for about 16.4 percent of the total population, are decreasing.
Ten populations, approximately 45.4 percent of the total number, are stable.
Another two populations — about 13.6 percent of the total number of polar bears — are increasing.
The status of the remaining six populations (whether they are stable, increasing or decreasing in size) is unknown.

Moreover, when the WWF report is compared with the Arctic air temperature trend studies discussed earlier, there is a strong positive (instead of negative) correlation between air temperature and polar bear populations. Polar bear populations are declining in regions (like Baffin Bay) that have experienced a decrease in air temperature, while areas where polar bear populations are increasing (near the Bering Strait and the Chukchi Sea) are associated with increasing air temperatures. Thus it is difficult to argue that rising air temperatures will necessarily and directly lead to a decrease in polar bear populations.

---

Polar Bears on Thin Ice, Not Really!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Recon

If you don’t think a small change in temperature matters, then just move north to the perma frost country and watch your house sink. Try hunting polar bears in 50 years.

Always remember who funds the mass media “experiments” you got suckered into.

---

Who got suckered?

Quote:

---

Interestingly, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), an international organization that has worked for 50 years to protect endangered species, has also written on the threats posed to polar bears from global warming. However, their own research seems to undermine their fears. According to the WWF, about 20 distinct polar bear populations exist, accounting for approximately 22,000 polar bears worldwide. As the figure shows, population patterns do not show a temperature-linked decline:

Only two of the distinct population groups, accounting for about 16.4 percent of the total population, are decreasing.
Ten populations, approximately 45.4 percent of the total number, are stable.
Another two populations — about 13.6 percent of the total number of polar bears — are increasing.
The status of the remaining six populations (whether they are stable, increasing or decreasing in size) is unknown.

Moreover, when the WWF report is compared with the Arctic air temperature trend studies discussed earlier, there is a strong positive (instead of negative) correlation between air temperature and polar bear populations. Polar bear populations are declining in regions (like Baffin Bay) that have experienced a decrease in air temperature, while areas where polar bear populations are increasing (near the Bering Strait and the Chukchi Sea) are associated with increasing air temperatures. Thus it is difficult to argue that rising air temperatures will necessarily and directly lead to a decrease in polar bear populations.

---

Polar Bears on Thin Ice, Not Really!

---

You got suckered.

This is just another example of some guy in Colorado saying “It’s cold outside, there can be no global warming.” Or “I’ve smoked for seventy years, and I ain’t got cancer.” Anyone can go to the web (democracy, and voting on science?) and find articles they can spin in their direction. That does not make it science. Besides, if there were any credence to your interpretation of the figures, then why would the Bush Administration bury the discussion of it? Especially considering their stance on Global Warming? http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070308/..._scientists_dc

You got suckered. Go see what the World Wildlife Fund has to say about the stats you cite. http://www.worldwildlife.org/polarbears/ Remember the burden of proof. You want to play Russian Roulette with polar bears. I don’t.

You know what’s sad about this whole debate: the initial post in this thread discusses a made for T.V. movie created by a hack who cites a certain scientist for authority in proving his position. The scientist’s work actually undermines the hack and it was proven the hack took the scientist work out of context, spun it, and omitted critical portions of it. That is proof of the hackery. Hack is not ad homonym when it is true.

Yet people want to believe the hack instead of the scientist.

You don’t have to be a scientist to know how science works. I see it working on the global warming debate, among the scientists. One side is winning; the other is losing, badly.

You wouldn’t go to a gun control advocate to discern the history, operation and use of the M-16. You’d go to the experts. Those experts on global warming suffer the same frustration listening to the hacks, that we suffer listening to some gun control nut trying to speak intelligently about weapons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by foxtrot

But if you want to come in here announcing a THEORY is a UNDENIABLE FACT THAT HAS BEEN PROVEN WITHOUT A DOUBT BY SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH you may want to crack open a dictionary and stop getting ahead of yourself.

---

Don't go putting words in my mouth. By doing so, you are doing the same damn thing the author of the T.V. show did (proven wrong by the scientists upon which he relied), and that which those who mistate the data and the position of the WWF did (proven wrong by the those upon whom they relied). YOu are also making my point. You are telling me what I said, but you are wrong. I didn't read your post beyond that because it is clear I'm not dealing with someone who has any analytical or critical reading skills. Doubt me? Then you show me where I ever said Global Warming is an UNDENIABLE FACT THAT HAS BEEN PROVEN WITHOUT A DOUBT BY SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH.

To correct you, what I did say, is that I choose to rely upon the scientific experts in the field, the peer-reviewed scientists who have devoted their lives to science and scientific theory. You know, virtually every scientist in the world who has ever wieghed in on the subject. UNLESS AND UNTIL you can alter their positions, then I'll choose to rely on them, thank you. I am not a scientist. And, since you are not one of them either, not even one of the one in a thousand who disagree with them, then your position is not credible and it's based upon belief, faith and supposition.

Now, I would read on and see what else you said, but since you put words in my mouth, mistated my position, and appear to be doing exactly what the doubters of global warming do when faced with overwhelming evidence, I won't bother. They should at least stick to the science. It can be done. It is being done. By scientists. Global warming is being challenged daily, by scientists, but so far they keep coming up with global warming and our participation in it. I don't see scientists putting words in other scientists mouths. I see them utilizing the scietific process to challenge ideas. So far, the overwhelming wieght of the evidence is against your "scientists."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by foxtrot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Recon

[You wouldn’t go to a gun control advocate to discern the history, operation and use of the M-16. You’d go to the experts. Those experts on global warming suffer the same frustration listening to the hacks, that we suffer listening to some gun control nut trying to speak intelligently about weapons.

---

Should I point something out? Its the other way around. First off, a M16 is a tangable object that doesnt need to be proven, and its existance is undeniable. Secondly, calling global warming activists the *only* side of the issue, and the only people that know what they are talking about is pretty sad, not to mention from my perspective, global warming activists would probably fit better into the "anti gun activist" category.

Comparing them to seasoned gun veterans with decades of experience is even worse.

Prime example of bending things to make them more appealing to people. Lets make the latest world ending fad a "gun expert", the ones opposing it "evil communist gun grabbers", make a un-proven theory a "m16" all in the hope it will appeal to people on a firearms board.

That said, I'm going to stop posting in this thread, despite my love for educated arguments.

---

An analogy, by definition, is not the thing itself. It is incumbent upon those who wish to defeat it to show a distinction with a difference. You failed to do so. I referenced the history, use and operation of the M-16, not it's existence. Would you rely upon a gun control advocate to discuss those issues? Why not? You rely upon spin doctors to refute global warming. I go to the experts. It's not bending things to make them more appealing, it's trying to use an analogy you might understand. It stands, unimpeached.

Oh, and you are the one trying to shift the subject with your rants about commies and all that crap. That is not educated argument.

Proof that global warming causes birth defects...

http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o...1111435461.jpg