Global warming is depressing. Like Conservatives, why not ignore it?

Aug 10, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Globe and Mail

I don't know about you but I can no longer read reports, books or news stories about the devastation being wrought by global warming.

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 20 of40
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Aug 11, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

3

From above

"I don't know about you but I can no longer read reports, books or news stories about the devastation being wrought by global warming."

"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change.

To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. SO WE HAVE TO OFFER UP SCARY SCENARIOS, MAKE SIMPLIFIED, DRAMATIC STATEMENTS, AND MAKE LITTLE MENTION OF ANY DOUBTS WE MIGHT HAVE.

This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both." Dr Stephen Schneider, Stanford University
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Aug 11, 2012
 

Judged:

4

3

2

Fun Facts wrote:
From above
"I don't know about you but I can no longer read reports, books or news stories about the devastation being wrought by global warming."
You just don't understand Canadian humor. Especially when we poke fun at ourselves in 'sarcasm' style. i.e. taking the opposite viewpoint and showing how illogical (and funny) it is.
Fun Facts wrote:
"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change.
To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. SO WE HAVE TO OFFER UP SCARY SCENARIOS, MAKE SIMPLIFIED, DRAMATIC STATEMENTS, AND MAKE LITTLE MENTION OF ANY DOUBTS WE MIGHT HAVE.
This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both." Dr Stephen Schneider, Stanford University
Or use sarcasm. By the way. There is no 'doubt' left so the whole issue of oversimplification of science issues for public communications is moot. Anyone can read the science and get the straight scoop from places like Eureka, New Scientist, Scientific american, science daily, etc.

Now, stop making such pathetic and meaningless tries at raising unawareness. Your very desperation in these tactics shows that you are desperate and trying to hold on to a losing cause.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Aug 11, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

2

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Anyone can read the science and get the straight scoop from places like Eureka, New Scientist, Scientific american, science daily, etc.
Now, stop making such pathetic and meaningless tries at raising unawareness. Your very desperation in these tactics shows that you are desperate and trying to hold on to a losing cause.
Wasn't it New Scientist that first published the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 from a phone interview with a researcher?

I know you want me to stop posting, but I'll keep posting. Enjoy!!
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Aug 11, 2012
 

Judged:

4

4

2

Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Wasn't it New Scientist that first published the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 from a phone interview with a researcher?
Yes. And they printed an apology. Big of them. Small of you.
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
I know you want me to stop posting, but I'll keep posting. Enjoy!!
I care nothing if you keep posting. It gives everyone a forum to show just how clueless your understanding of science really is. That generally strengthens the arguments for AGW science and policy changes.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Aug 12, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

3

If this is a forum to show how clueless some people are, there can be no one as clueless as the guy who made these comments:
Forty is spelt with a U
Etymology is not a serious subject
Deforestations is a consequence of AGW
Epistemologists compile dictionaries
Epystemologists compile dictionaries
Samuel Johnson was an American
Ice calving is restricted by size
Spelt is only an ancient grain
The equator doesn't have season
Cars can be charged with road collisions
Vikings didn't know how to live in a warmer Greenland
How much heat you are transferring at one time has NO relationship to the temperature of any objects
Alberta is a country
New Moore island is in the MOUTH of the several rivers
Insects and plants don't qualify as species
Enercon install offshore wind generators
Scientific laws are not science
Climate and weather are not 'linked'
Predictions are for astrologers
Ethanol is a very workable and effective solution
AGW is just the warming of the global average surface temperature due to GHGs
AGW is the global average
The science says that human emissions are responsible for MOST of AGW, which has SOME unknown but significant part of climate change
The IPCC report of 2001 and 2007 clearly show that GHGs are by far the largest contributor but not the exclusive contributor to AGW
America has two political parties
Climate and weather are not 'linked'
'nondenier' is a real word
Fruiting plants are especially chosen by bees for, "polination"
We acted on CFCs in the 70s
CO2 is not vital for life on planet Earth.
CO2 causes, "thermal pollution"
CO2 is a 'thermal pollutant'
CO2 levels are rising faster than the temperature can react
AGW is comparable to the Holocaust
Please show this 'ararmist club' and membership list.
And theory is the endpoint of science.
The 'unproven' stuff is 'hypothesis'.
The fact that all the scientific authorities confirm AGW as theory means that it IS science fact as defined.
There are no 'laws of science'
Scientific laws are NOT science
the science isn't going to change
While the science doesn't change rapidly it does change
And nowhere is there 'skepticism' of the science
Experiment is NOT science
Experiment can only give you data. It cannot PROVE anything
PHD

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Aug 12, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Earthling-1 wrote:
If this is a forum to show how clueless some people are, there can be no one as clueless as the guy who made these comments:
Forty is spelt with a U
Etymology is not a serious subject
Deforestations is a consequence of AGW
Epistemologists compile dictionaries
Epystemologists compile dictionaries
Samuel Johnson was an American
Ice calving is restricted by size
Spelt is only an ancient grain
The equator doesn't have season
Cars can be charged with road collisions
Vikings didn't know how to live in a warmer Greenland
How much heat you are transferring at one time has NO relationship to the temperature of any objects
Alberta is a country
New Moore island is in the MOUTH of the several rivers
Insects and plants don't qualify as species
Enercon install offshore wind generators
Scientific laws are not science
Climate and weather are not 'linked'
Predictions are for astrologers
Ethanol is a very workable and effective solution
AGW is just the warming of the global average surface temperature due to GHGs
AGW is the global average
The science says that human emissions are responsible for MOST of AGW, which has SOME unknown but significant part of climate change
The IPCC report of 2001 and 2007 clearly show that GHGs are by far the largest contributor but not the exclusive contributor to AGW
America has two political parties
Climate and weather are not 'linked'
'nondenier' is a real word
Fruiting plants are especially chosen by bees for, "polination"
We acted on CFCs in the 70s
CO2 is not vital for life on planet Earth.
CO2 causes, "thermal pollution"
CO2 is a 'thermal pollutant'
CO2 levels are rising faster than the temperature can react
AGW is comparable to the Holocaust
Please show this 'ararmist club' and membership list.
And theory is the endpoint of science.
The 'unproven' stuff is 'hypothesis'.
The fact that all the scientific authorities confirm AGW as theory means that it IS science fact as defined.
There are no 'laws of science'
Scientific laws are NOT science
the science isn't going to change
While the science doesn't change rapidly it does change
And nowhere is there 'skepticism' of the science
Experiment is NOT science
Experiment can only give you data. It cannot PROVE anything
So you don't know just useless babble.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Aug 12, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Earthling-1 wrote:
If this is a forum to show how clueless some people are, there can be no one as clueless as the guy who made these comments:
Forty is spelt with a U
Etymology is not a serious subject
Deforestations is a consequence of AGW
Epistemologists compile dictionaries
Epystemologists compile dictionaries
Samuel Johnson was an American
Ice calving is restricted by size
Spelt is only an ancient grain
The equator doesn't have season
Cars can be charged with road collisions
Vikings didn't know how to live in a warmer Greenland
How much heat you are transferring at one time has NO relationship to the temperature of any objects
Alberta is a country
New Moore island is in the MOUTH of the several rivers
Insects and plants don't qualify as species
Enercon install offshore wind generators
Scientific laws are not science
Climate and weather are not 'linked'
Predictions are for astrologers
Ethanol is a very workable and effective solution
AGW is just the warming of the global average surface temperature due to GHGs
AGW is the global average
The science says that human emissions are responsible for MOST of AGW, which has SOME unknown but significant part of climate change
The IPCC report of 2001 and 2007 clearly show that GHGs are by far the largest contributor but not the exclusive contributor to AGW
America has two political parties
Climate and weather are not 'linked'
'nondenier' is a real word
Fruiting plants are especially chosen by bees for, "polination"
We acted on CFCs in the 70s
CO2 is not vital for life on planet Earth.
CO2 causes, "thermal pollution"
CO2 is a 'thermal pollutant'
CO2 levels are rising faster than the temperature can react
AGW is comparable to the Holocaust
Please show this 'ararmist club' and membership list.
And theory is the endpoint of science.
The 'unproven' stuff is 'hypothesis'.
The fact that all the scientific authorities confirm AGW as theory means that it IS science fact as defined.
There are no 'laws of science'
Scientific laws are NOT science
the science isn't going to change
While the science doesn't change rapidly it does change
And nowhere is there 'skepticism' of the science
Experiment is NOT science
Experiment can only give you data. It cannot PROVE anything
Pathetic.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Aug 12, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

3

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. And they printed an apology. Big of them. Small of you.
<quoted text>
Did they print an apology? Well good for them. Too bad they had to apologize for printing a story about the Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035.

They had to apologize for printing a story that was the result of a phone call. If they had not printed a story about the Himalayan glacier melt by 2035 based on a phone call, they would not have had to apologize.

New Scientist is supposed to be a science magazine. Not the science version of facebook or topix. If they did it once, how many other stories have they printed with the same level of integrity.

You shouldn't get your science from magazines, newspaper headlines or 20 second sound bites. The IPCC shouldn't either, but they did, and more than once.

Let me guess, you think it's 'small of me' for bringing up the Himalayan glacier melt by 2035 story that was the result of a phone call and published in New Scientist, again.

Get used to it, everytime you get close, I'll bring it up again. I call it the gift that keeps on giving.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Aug 12, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Fun Facts wrote:
Did they print an apology? Well good for them. Too bad they had to apologize for printing a story about the Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035.
They had to apologize for printing a story that was the result of a phone call. If they had not printed a story about the Himalayan glacier melt by 2035 based on a phone call, they would not have had to apologize.
New Scientist is supposed to be a science magazine. Not the science version of facebook or topix. If they did it once, how many other stories have they printed with the same level of integrity.
You shouldn't get your science from magazines, newspaper headlines or 20 second sound bites. The IPCC shouldn't either, but they did, and more than once.
Let me guess, you think it's 'small of me' for bringing up the Himalayan glacier melt by 2035 story that was the result of a phone call and published in New Scientist, again.
Get used to it, everytime you get close, I'll bring it up again. I call it the gift that keeps on giving.
Too damn right!
Keep up the good work.
Meanwhile, every time LessFact writes more bafflegab, I'll respond with the list of his boobs, no matter how "pathetic" or "pitiful" Bozo thinks it is.
Fight fire with fire, but leave the bafflegab to them.
Ö¿Ö
PHD

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Aug 12, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>Too damn right!
Keep up the good work.
Meanwhile, every time LessFact writes more bafflegab, I'll respond with the list of his boobs, no matter how "pathetic" or "pitiful" Bozo thinks it is.
Fight fire with fire, but leave the bafflegab to them.
Ö¿Ö
You should win that one hands down. You’re the commander of babble. Keep up the good work you may give the Less than a Box of Rocks a run for its position.
Who

Wyoming, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Aug 12, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

3

The problem with liberals is that they're gullible enough to think that science would never fail them, never lie to them, could never be wrong. Don't anyone question science, they're always right because the scientists have degrees that prove they'll never be wrong.

That's exactly the arrogant, holier-than-thou attitude that's gets them into trouble.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Aug 13, 2012
 

Judged:

3

2

2

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, commonly referred to as "The Gold Standard" of climate science.
-
Errors, distortions and exaggerations in the WGI Report
-
Errors, distortions and exaggerations in the WGII Report
-
Errors, distortions and exaggerations in the WGIII Report
-
https://sites.google.com/site/globalwarmingqu...
-
"All that glisters is not gold."

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Aug 13, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Who wrote:
The problem with liberals is that they're gullible enough to think that science would never fail them, never lie to them, could never be wrong. Don't anyone question science, they're always right because the scientists have degrees that prove they'll never be wrong.
That's exactly the arrogant, holier-than-thou attitude that's gets them into trouble.
It is not that the science can never be wrong that is the problem, it is the unreasoned attitude by deniers that it can never be right that is the problem.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Aug 13, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

DumBozo wrote:
It is not that the science can never be wrong that is the problem, it is the unreasoned attitude by[sic] deniers that it can never be right that is the problem.
I see, so you're saying that there's no possibility it could be the unreasoned attitude of believers that the science can never be wrong that is the problem?
Who

Wyoming, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Aug 13, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>I see, so you're saying that there's no possibility it could be the unreasoned attitude of believers that the science can never be wrong that is the problem?
Maybe it's just my "unreasoned attitude of a denier" talking here, but didn't AKA Bonehead just prove my point with his arrogant, holier-than-thou post?

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Aug 13, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Who wrote:
Maybe it's just my "unreasoned attitude of a denier" talking here, but didn't AKA Bonehead just prove my point with his arrogant, holier-than-thou post?
The answer is, yes, of course, but not as far as Bozo's concerned.
Ö¿Ö

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Aug 13, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>I see, so you're saying that there's no possibility it could be the unreasoned attitude of believers that the science can never be wrong that is the problem?
I am not sure who you mean by believers. If you mean those who are more apt to follow the science than the political attitude of the deniers, then you are very wrong. Anyone who understands the scientific process knows that there is always room for questions. Those who must subscribe to conspiratorial reasoning to shun the findings of science are the unreasonable ones. They have no questions. They simply believe. Are those the believers to which you refer?
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Aug 13, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Who wrote:
The problem with liberals is that they're gullible enough to think that science would never fail them, never lie to them, could never be wrong. Don't anyone question science, they're always right because the scientists have degrees that prove they'll never be wrong.
That's exactly the arrogant, holier-than-thou attitude that's gets them into trouble.
Agreed. They believe science will never fail them thus relieving themselves of the necessity of work.

"If the scientist says it, I don't have to know what he is talking about I can just trust him. And because I trust him I don't have to spend my time acquiring the knowledge it takes to make a judgement. And if I trust him and he's wrong then I bare no responsibility for the negative outcomes. It'll be his fault. In the end I will be the receipent of his judgement, I will let him think, I do not have to know, I believe."
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Aug 13, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not sure who you mean by believers. If you mean those who are more apt to follow the science than the political attitude of the deniers, then you are very wrong. Anyone who understands the scientific process knows that there is always room for questions. Those who must subscribe to conspiratorial reasoning to shun the findings of science are the unreasonable ones. They have no questions. They simply believe. Are those the believers to which you refer?
I think he is referring to you. The guy who believes and yet can't support his beliefs. The guy who not so long ago didn't know the Yamal studies, or James Hansen's three scenarios. You just believed, didn't bother to even look.

The guy who believes the IPCC reports even when shown some of the content to be the result of magazine articles.

The guy whose science is summed up in 20 second sound bites and topix thread titles. Want to try to defend that Nature article on temps and CO2 again?

You don't debate science, you debate newspaper headlines and web site opinions. You claim a science background, but it is not obvious in what you post.

You are a believer.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Aug 13, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

DumBozo wrote:
I am not sure who you mean by believers.
Allow me to explain.
DumBozo wrote:
If you mean those who are more apt to follow the science than the political attitude of the deniers, then you are very wrong.
Not quite, I meant those "more apt to follow the science" blindly.
DumBozo wrote:
Anyone who understands the scientific process knows that there is always room for questions.
But few 'alarmists' ever bother to ask questions, that's why they're classed as believers.
DumBozo wrote:
Those who must subscribe to conspiratorial reasoning to shun the findings of science are the unreasonable ones.
It's time you gave up with your 'conspiracy' theory.
DumBozo wrote:
They have no questions. They simply believe. Are those the believers to which you refer?
You know better than that.

PS: It's nice to see you've recovered from your spate of one word responses.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 20 of40
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

8 Users are viewing the Global Warming Forum right now

Search the Global Warming Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 30 min litesong 29,897
Permian Methane-Producing Microbes May Have Cau... 37 min litesong 1
It's almost Easter, so why is there still snow ... 2 hr albedodown 2
Global Warming Standup Comedy (Apr '07) 2 hr litesong 3,214
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 3 hr litesong 42,993
NASA Study; Cal. Drought, Polar Vortex, El Nino... 4 hr boo ya 3
New Physics Explaining The Real Reason Behind C... (May '13) 9 hr jamal Shrair 211
•••
•••
•••
•••