Climate of Fear

[ylexot]

A very intersting article on Global Warming and the culture of the scientific community that is involved...
Climate of Fear

There have been repeated claims that this past year's hurricane activity was another sign of human-induced climate change. Everything from the heat wave in Paris to heavy snows in Buffalo has been blamed on people burning gasoline to fuel their cars, and coal and natural gas to heat, cool and electrify their homes. Yet how can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes?

 

[ylexot]

I also like this paragraph:

To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming.

 

[Softballkid]

and we're not running vehicles off of water yet because.......

 

[Larry Gude]

This is a game...

Public concern = Funding for research.
No public concern = Less funding for research

Scary issue = Something to write about
Everything is fine = Baby stories and obituaries

We're all gonna die = Something to talk about
We're all fine = How's the wife and kids?

Fire! = People pay attention
Smoke! =

 

[vraiblonde]

That's pretty much it.

 

[truby20]

I also like this paragraph:

To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true.

OK, so here he says that the earth is warming, CO2 levels are increasing and if CO2 continues to increase then warming will continue.

But then he questions the funding of research:

Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today.

Are we serious? Notice how he tries to make it seem like there was some MASSIVE increase in spending by just saying a "few hundred million dollars". He is talking about a twenty year time period during which we realized that Earth had been warming. Of course the people expect there to be an increase in research that their government is supporting, I would think that the advancements in IT resources (supercomputers, improved network infrastructures) could account for a large portion of that increase in funding over twenty years.

After all, who puts money into science--whether for AIDS, or space, or climate--where there is nothing really alarming?

Is he suggesting that AIDS isn't a serious crisis? Money is fixing our AIDS situation, people are actually living with HIV for long periods of time....the only thing that made that happen was research which requires money.

 

[vraiblonde]

Money is fixing our AIDS situation, people are actually living with HIV for long periods of time....the only thing that made that happen was research which requires money.

The AIDS situation could be fixed even more if people would stop having unprotected gay sex or shooting up drugs.

Duh.

 

[Bustem' Down]

The AIDS situation could be fixed even more if people would stop having unprotected gay sex or shooting up drugs.

Duh.

You forgot unprotected hetero sex
And the big group getting hit now is senior citizens.



Bah global warming. Remember that whole rainforest scare a couple decades ago?

 

[vraiblonde]

And the big group getting hit now is senior citizens.

But gay men and IV drug users are still, far and away, the majority of AIDS cases.

Remember that whole rainforest scare a couple decades ago?

Indeed. That's why I now get my news from South Park. If they say I shouldn't worry about it, I don't.

 

[Bustem' Down]

But gay men and IV drug users are still, far and away, the majority of AIDS cases.:

Let them get it. Then they die off. What you should say is people need to stop having unprotected sex with gay men and drug users.

 

[nomoney]

I bought my 5 low energy light bulbs like Oprah said to do, and I even recycled a pizza box last week (re-used it as a cake dish). I'm doing my part

 

[vraiblonde]

The most telling paragraph in the article:

But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.

 

[truby20]

So this is what he's been up to

Al Gore's new movie should shake things up a bit...

An Inconvenient Truth

If the trailer is indicative of what the film is like then it's way too sensational to be taken seriously.

 

[vraiblonde]

Al Gore's new movie should shake things up a bit...

"The most terrifying movie you will ever see!"


Truby, I have a question (and this is a real question, not a dig):

Did you vote for Al Gore in 2000? If not, disregard. If so, do you still support him or do you think he's gone off the deep end?

Half the country voted for him, so I'm just curious if they voted for him because they genuinely think he'd have made a great President or if they just voted against the Republican.

 

[truby20]

Truby, I have a question (and this is a real question, not a dig):

Did you vote for Al Gore in 2000? If not, disregard. If so, do you still support him or do you think he's gone off the deep end?

I did vote for Gore in 2000, but do I think he's gone off the deep end? I can't imagine the emotional strain the last six years have been to him, to lose the presidency by such a close margin and then have his party nearly abandon him had to be difficult. So he has refocused on environmental issues and is trying to get a message out there and I have to say I support him in that cause....but this movie looks too extremist. How much of that was his doing? I guess he had a large role in it since he is the main voice we hear during the preview and to make a reference to hurricane Katrina is just tacky. Katrina was a human caused disaster. Camille hit nearly the same area in the 60's and was much more powerful.

Half the country voted for him, so I'm just curious if they voted for him because they genuinely think he'd have made a great President or if they just voted against the Republican.

Did you vote for Bush because you genuinely thought he would make a great President? Gore was much more in line with my views on social issues, that's why he got my vote.

 

[vraiblonde]

Did you vote for Bush because you genuinely thought he would make a great President?

No - I've said numerous times that the only reason I voted for him in 2000 was because he wasn't Al Gore. But in 2004 I cast a legitimate vote FOR him because I was all about the war in Iraq and terrorism, and I'm pretty happy (for the most part) with the way he's handling things.

 

[Kerad]

No - I've said numerous times that the only reason I voted for him in 2000 was because he wasn't Al Gore. But in 2004 I cast a legitimate vote FOR him because I was all about the war in Iraq and terrorism, and I'm pretty happy (for the most part) with the way he's handling things.

So your expectations must have been EXTEMELY low. Thanks for that vote. Really worked out for us...

 

[vraiblonde]

Thanks for that vote. Really worked out for us...

You Leftists and crybabies weren't part of my consideration, but you're welcome anyway.

There are several million Iraqis that are genuinely thanking me for my vote.

 

[Otter]

Al Gore's new movie should shake things up a bit...

An Inconvenient Truth

If the trailer is indicative of what the film is like then it's way too sensational to be taken seriously.

Yo, WeatherLady, have you read this and have any comments on it??

 

[Bruzilla]

So your expectations must have been EXTEMELY low. Thanks for that vote. Really worked out for us...

I was wondering... what do you think a Gore Administration would have done after 9/11?