The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Gman]

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?

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!

[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?

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.

[Recon]

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."

[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.

[Atrain]

Proof that global warming causes birth defects...

[Recon]

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.

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.

Breaking my own rule by posting one more time, but I wanted to clarify where "Undeniable" comes from.

I dont have to put words in your mouth. You do a wonderful job. It can be inffered that statement A: means you think that the only real science is on your side of the theory, all other science is a hack.

It can be inferred in statement B: that you think every scientist, save one or two who has an opinon on global warming, supports it. You invent a statistic that .1% (one one-thousandth) of people disagree with global warming. You also state postions against global warming are not fact based, and are based on mythology.

Now, It doesnt take someone with a science degree to realize you are about as far away from saying global warming is undeniable as a gun expert saying a M16 is tangable. After all, 1/1000 people probably think an M16 is a figment of their imagination, but we can throw away their opinon because the general consensus - despite one ever being taken - says m16's are real.

If thats not the point you wanted to make, it certainly isnt very far off the mark. I can edit it if you like: "The theory of global warming is not a proven fact, but 99.9% of people (despite a poll being taken) believe it is real, and the .1% that does not bases their opinon solely on Mythology, so we can infer that it is, undeniable by overwhelming public opinon.

That suit your fancy?

Adding that the general public should have absolutly no say in something unproven that has purely financial & moral, and not mortal consequences is very disturbing as well.

With that clarified, I wont post again. Promise. I'll stop foaming.

Twice, you "infer" something from what I said. You are mistaken. Again, don't infer. Just try to focus on what I actually said; not what your baseless assumptions and inferences would have me say.

After your mistaken inferences, you again mistate my position regarding the analogy between global warming and M-16s. I said nothing about M-16s not existing. I referenced their history, use and operation. Would you ask a gun control nut about these issues, or would you ask an expert? Why don't you do the same regarding global warming? Ask an expert. Don't rely upon lay opinion with no expertise in the area.

Further, the consenus data has nothing to do with "people." Other than arguing against the idea of voting on the matter, or democratizing science, I've said nothing about "public opinion" or "the general public." It has to do with scientists. I'm sure more people than 1 in 1000 believe as you do. A great number of people think global warming is a myth. But they are not scientists and they are not relying upon science.

Finally, go look at the statistics on the scientists and you will find the ratio is indeed around 1 in 1000 who deny global warming is occuring and that humans play some roll in it. In fact, you would be hard pressed to find any peer-reviewed science which demonstrates global warming is not occuring and that humans have nothing to do with it.

[HunterCO]

Proof that global warming causes birth defects...

My lawyer will be contacting you about the impending lawsuit for posting my baby pics on the net. [pirate]

[Zak Smith]

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-03-04-1.html

[cedrick]

I just saw a show and they said the un will release there findings ion globale warming 1000 scientests they also said there were 17000 apposing the un stance and then some of the Dr said because of there opposition to the reports they we reciving death threats and there funding was being cut ,Global warmming is false religon that the greens follow and they thry to make it fact when its not ,THE EARTH WILL NOT GO DOWN BY GLOBAL WARMMING ! [postal]

[Recon]

Card hangs most of his hat on alleged miss-use of a single bristlecone pine tree ring study that ends up in a U.N. report? His arguments are not unlike Creighton. There are only a few scientists who actually study global warming and the rest all mislead lap dogs? :roll: It’s a classic case of “The best defense is a good offense.” Forget bringing forth your own science.

Yeah, Card, it's all a world wide conspiracy lead by the Bush Administration, working hand in hand with his favorite people at the U.N. to limit petroleum hydrocarbon emissions based on feel-good science. Bush has caved in to Greenpeace and the press is burying the truth. [roll]

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/

Even if Card was right, his analysis of the burden of proof issue is lacking. Imagine all the money, misery and lives that would have been saved if asbestos study occurred on the front end. That's just one example of thousands.

In any event, as I said before, people can run to the web and find anything they want to support any position they want (contrary to Card's assertion of burial of the truth). It's all out there, it's just that the case for global warming is trouncing the case against it. As Card would say about his own case, and deny to the rest of the world: The evidence IS out there and no one is hiding it.

"Though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the Earth, so truth be in the field. We do injuriously, by licensing and prohibiting, to misdoubt her strength. Let her and falsehood grapple; for whoever knew the truth to be put to the worse than in a free and open encounter." John Milton, Areopagitica.