Climate Change

[The Green Barbarian]

And I beleive GB that your approach to these forums exactly models your attitude toward the environment There's an inexhaustable supply of everything that you are entitled to crap on, like other posters who respect the OP's topic, air, water, what have you.
Actually, I'm acut(i)e.

you can believe it, but it's not true. I believe that out of the whole AGW fraud, aside from the billions upon billions of dollars that have been wasted, has been the usurption of the environmental movement - the enviros used to have great causes, like saving whales etc, but now everything else is lost in the armegeddonist screams of the whackos in the AGW cult. You can support conservation, recycling and respect for the environment, without being a naive mush-head that blindly believes in the AGW fraud, despite having any proof presented to them.

[JagXKR]

A very telling article on the Great AGW Fraud.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/11998-%E2%80%9Cclimate-science%E2%80%9D-in-shambles-real-scientists-battle-un-agenda

[c2c]

Note that the John Birch Society owns American Opinion Publishing, which publishes the journal The New American.

It should also be noted that the John Birch Society also opposed the civil rights movement in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society

[FreeRights]

you can believe it, but it's not true. I believe that out of the whole AGW fraud, aside from the billions upon billions of dollars that have been wasted, has been the usurption of the environmental movement - the enviros used to have great causes, like saving whales etc, but now everything else is lost in the armegeddonist screams of the whackos in the AGW cult. You can support conservation, recycling and respect for the environment, without being a naive mush-head that blindly believes in the AGW fraud, despite having any proof presented to them.

Just for clarification, your argument is that human effects on the earth is not contributing in any way to climate change?

[ForestfortheTrees]

Just for clarification, your argument is that human effects on the earth is not contributing in any way to climate change?

GB - I would like to hear your comments on this....

[The Green Barbarian]

Just for clarification, your argument is that human effects on the earth is not contributing in any way to climate change?

I'll let Matt Ridley sum up my "argument" - note his views and mine fall in line with Bjorn Lomborg. BTW - I've stated my views many times, and also posted this very speech several times before too. It just goes to show how many brain-washed AGW "believers" still exist out there, despite years and years now of zero prognostications coming true from the AGW fanatics and doom-sayers. Anyway - take it away Matt...

Using these six lessons, I am now going to plunge into an issue on which almost all the experts are not only confident they can predict the future, but absolutely certain their opponents are pseudoscientists. It is an issue on which I am now a heretic. I think the establishment view is infested with pseudoscience. The issue is climate change.

Now before you all rush for the exits, and I know it is traditional to walk out on speakers who do not toe the line on climate at the RSA – I saw it happen to Bjorn Lomborg last year when he gave the Prince Philip lecture – let me be quite clear. I am not a “denier”. I fully accept that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, the climate has been warming and that man is very likely to be at least partly responsible. When a study was published recently saying that 98% of scientists “believe” in global warming, I looked at the questions they had been asked and realized I was in the 98%, too, by that definition, though I never use the word “believe” about myself. Likewise the recent study from Berkeley, which concluded that the land surface of the continents has indeed been warming at about the rate people thought, changed nothing.

So what’s the problem? The problem is that you can accept all the basic tenets of greenhouse physics and still conclude that the threat of a dangerously large warming is so improbable as to be negligible, while the threat of real harm from climate-mitigation policies is already so high as to be worrying, that the cure is proving far worse than the disease is ever likely to be. Or as I put it once, we may be putting a tourniquet round our necks to stop a nosebleed.

I also think the climate debate is a massive distraction from much more urgent environmental problems like invasive species and overfishing.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/01/t ... tt-ridley/

[FreeRights]

Fair enough.

So there is a threat, but it may be so minor that acting on it proactively is a bad thing?

[The Green Barbarian]

Fair enough.

So there is a threat, but it may be so minor that acting on it proactively is a bad thing?

my turn - please define "acting proactively". And keep your actions to under $400 billion per annum of taxpayer cash being spent, if you can.

[FreeRights]

my turn - please define "acting proactively". And keep your actions to under $400 billion per annum of taxpayer cash being spent, if you can.

So the reality is that we agree that there is some risk related to possible climate change as a result of human activity. The issue that people may have disagreements over, then, is regarding the methods that are being done to deal with it.

That is a fair argument.

I don't know enough about it, specifically, to really state what should be done. I do not think that it is fair to simply ignore and do nothing, because that would be a horrible thing to do to the generations that come after ours.

[averagejoe]

This thread needs to be moved after this newspaper article........

Climate change deniers 'are either extreme free marketeers or conspiracy theorists’
An Australian study says avid climate change deniers tend to be either extreme free marketeers or conspiracy theorists who believe the moon landing was faked or Princess Diana was murdered.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/enviro ... rists.html

[The Green Barbarian]

I don't know enough about it, specifically, to really state what should be done. I do not think that it is fair to simply ignore and do nothing, because that would be a horrible thing to do to the generations that come after ours.

I hear what you are saying. By the same token, I think it is ridiculous for someone like James Hansen to write op-ed pieces for the New York Times full of hyperbole and unfounded nonsense, and no one even calls him to task for writing complete lunacy. I think it's ridiculous that every time a tornado touches down or a hurricane comes near the North American mainland, the hysterical loons start cranking up their death-propaganda and hand-wringing. I know that there are billions and perhaps trillions of dollars at stake here, in terms of government cash still being pumped into the hysteria, but people eventually just get tired of it.

So, as Matt Ridley said, it's not the science surrounding the concept that CO2 traps heat that is really the issue, the real hoax and fraud of this entire movement are the shysters like James Hansen, who have made a living now for 25 years, by dramatically over-emphasizing the effects of CO2 and projecting these constant dooms-day scenarios that never come to fruition, and the demands of these People for billions upon billions of dollars to be spent, and for all world economies to be severely hamstrung, for basically no reason. It's all sheer lunacy, but so much money has already been spent, and so many governments have followed that lunatic down this crazy rabbit-hole, and so many scientists and fund-raising groups have been set up like parasites to feed off of this nutty armegeddonist vision, that no one wants to say "the emperor has no clothes". More and more people are coming out and saying this, as witnessed by that letter that came out from former NASA employees a few months ago, and I expect more to come, as Hansen keeps dialing up the crazy, and continues to make even more panicked future predictions that will never come true.

If you really are interested in hearing more from people who aren't just trying to perpetuate this AGW fraud, try going to http://www.wattsupwiththat.com or http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/. The blogosphere has been the main source of information and leading the charge against the evils of the AGW fraudsters and their attempts to force carbon credits down our throats, control every aspect of our lives, and tax us into oblivion. What was scary was how easy it was to convince people that this fraud was real, and how willing people were to just give up their freedoms and hand over their wallets, all for people deliberately exaggerating to insane proportions, the effects of an unproven scientific hypothesis. Just plain ridiculous.

One final note - check out "the Skeptical Environmentalist" by Bjorn Lomborg. The AGW freaks just plain hate that guy. http://www.lomborg.com/publications/the ... mentalist/

[ForestfortheTrees]

One final note - check out "the Skeptical Environmentalist" by Bjorn Lomborg. The AGW freaks just plain hate that guy. http://www.lomborg.com/publications/the ... mentalist/

From a 2010 interview with Lomborg:
http://www.newstatesman.com/environment/2010/09/interview-gay-climate

What is your position on global warming?
Global warming is real - it is man-made and it is an important problem. But it is not the end of the world.

So what's your solution?
We need to invest dramatically in green energy, making solar panels so cheap that everybody wants them. Nobody wanted to buy a computer in 1950, but once they got cheap, everyone bought them.

And from the Guardian Newspaper...
Bjørn Lomborg: $100bn a year needed to fight climate change
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/30/bjorn-lomborg-climate-change-u-turn

[The Green Barbarian]

Do I agree with Bjorn Lomborg on everything? Nope. But I do agree that the armedgonist rhethoric behind the AGW is a massive hoax, that only the truly naive, greedy and stupid have fallen for it. Case in point:

[ForestfortheTrees]

Do I agree with Bjorn Lomborg on everything? Nope. But I do agree that the armedgonist rhethoric behind the AGW is a massive hoax, that only the truly naive, greedy and stupid have fallen for it.

So its only the "armedgonist rhethoric" that's a hoax, and the science behind climate change is correct? I think that's Lomborg's position. Or is he "truly naive, greedy and stupid" as well?? Can you clarify please?

[The Green Barbarian]

[

So its only the "armedgonist rhethoric" that's a hoax, and the science behind climate change is correct? ?

I get that being deliberately obtuse is your "schtick" but this is really getting silly.