Global Myths - My Son's Sixth-Grade Speech

[RickSp]

I won't claim to have any great expertise in climatology and the topic is still under debate and analysis by those who do, but the proponderance of opinion seems to be coming down on the "global warming is real" side of the argument.

‘Global warming real’ say new studies

A leading US team of climate researchers on Friday released “the most compelling evidence yet” that human activities are responsible for global warming. They said their analysis should “wipe out” claims by sceptics that recent warming is due to non-human factors such as natural fluctuations in climate or variations in solar or volcanic activity.

[Pale RIder]

One fact that the global warming crowd never fails to ignore is that for the majority of earth history, it has been so warm that no ice existed at all on one, or both, of the poles. I have no doubt that the earth is warming, it is part of the earth's natural cycle...and we can no more effect that cycle than we can stop a volcano, or a hurricane, or an earthquake.

With the most powerful computer models available today, my weatherman can't predict with any accuracy whether or not it is going to rain on my back yard tomorrow..and you expect for me to believe that they know what the weather is going to be like in 50 or 100 years...tell me another fairy tale..

[Pooeypants]

One fact that the global warming crowd never fails to ignore is that for the majority of earth history, it has been so warm that no ice existed at all on one, or both, of the poles. I have no doubt that the earth is warming, it is part of the earth's natural cycle...and we can no more effect that cycle than we can stop a volcano, or a hurricane, or an earthquake.

Life in the past was also very different from what it is now, human beings most certainly hadn't evolved back then so your point is moot.

With the most powerful computer models available today, my weatherman can't predict with any accuracy whether or not it is going to rain on my back yard tomorrow..and you expect for me to believe that they know what the weather is going to be like in 50 or 100 years...tell me another fairy tale..

Weather and climate is not the same thing, please don't do the layman thing and mistake them.

[SeanG]

Pooey,

Quit posting many replies to me and give me one, yes one, example that shows global warming to be true. Don’t say everything in the IPCC, give me an example of the top of your head, join me in a conversation won’t you.

You said

Ah but, even though that thread is tens of pages long, the opponents were smart enough not to use the Oregon Petition as some form of support because they knew that it was misleading and outdated.

My son said that Paul Crutzen, a Nobel Prize winner, and meteorologist Bert Bolin, the former Chairman of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or, IPCC disagrees with you and the IPCC.

My son also made reference to those including more than 2000 of the world's leading climatologists, meteorologists and planetary / atmospheric scientists out of the 17,000 that are on the petition. You make it seem that one example of a PR man, who may in fact have a degree in business (I don’t know) and may have personally studied the issue for many years as a hobby cannot sign the petition because he is a conservative or has spoken out against the issue? Conservatives need not apply? An example of how liberalism leads to only one point of view being accepted.

• (For instance, the professor at Colorado State University is being surrounded by liberal “ideologues” [using Pooey’s terminology] saying that freedom of speech should be protected. However, these people who love this freedom soo much are not to found in Harvard President Lawrence Summers case. I guess only Liberal speech should be protected.)

Pooey, you said an incredible statement:

Again, I will point out, science is not dogmatic, if new evidence come to light, they will be used and incorporated or overthrow current theories. I'm not stuck in the past so why should you be?

That has got to be the silliest thing I have heard.

Horrible Iraq connection, by-the-way.

When you said:

So you're telling me now that the whole IPCC has been bribed?
Tell me, why are some of the main antagonists of global warming funded by ExxonMobil?

Careful, because there are many radical connections to the UN. In fact, a Marxist spy help start the UN. The meditation room was built and funded by the Theosophical Society which was founded by Madam Blavatsky, who influenced Nazi occultism and views Lucifer as an angel of light, a good guy, and the God of the Bible as an evil entity. The “connection” argument is a two edged sword. Because it alos extends into the sites you link us to as well, follow the money and it goes to anti-capitalist wackos just as much as some money may go back to corporations. This entails a fallacy if I am correct, I cannot think of which one it is right now.

140 you listed are composed of nations that are socialistic, Marxist, theocratic (islamo-fascist nations), so I would take 140 nations with a grain of salt. Which of those don’t take 70-percent of their peoples hard-earned money, or allow woman to vote and drive? You said:

how is it then that in those 140 nations happen to be synchronised in their decision on Climate change?

Because as we all know, those 140 nations are just as unbiased as science, right!?



Tony Castalino, you know that Democrats started more wars and Republicans pulled us out or ended more wars, right?

[Pooeypants]

Pooey, you said an incredible statement:

Again, I will point out, science is not dogmatic, if new evidence come to light, they will be used and incorporated or overthrow current theories. I'm not stuck in the past so why should you be?

That has got to be the silliest thing I have heard.

Horrible Iraq connection, by-the-way.

How is it incredible? Which part didn't you understand?

I'll answer the rest of your post in my morning though, it's 2:36am.

[Pooeypants]

Look, you can keep mentioning the past but I'm currently studying science at University and I can tell you it in no way resembles dogmatic religions. Citing a Creationist (which is essential what an ID supporter really is), a "science" writer and one geneticist doesn't change that. I am taught, and I do science as an "organized systematic enterprise that gathers knowledge about the world and condenses the knowledge into testable laws and principles". Source

Btw, if you want to promote and argue about Creationism, bring it on but leave it to Science and Tech section.

[Pooeypants]

Pooey,You saidMy son said that Paul Crutzen, a Nobel Prize winner, and meteorologist Bert Bolin, the former Chairman of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or, IPCC disagrees with you and the IPCC.

My son also made reference to those including more than 2000 of the world's leading climatologists, meteorologists and planetary / atmospheric scientists out of the 17,000 that are on the petition. You make it seem that one example of a PR man, who may in fact have a degree in business (I don’t know) and may have personally studied the issue for many years as a hobby cannot sign the petition because he is a conservative or has spoken out against the issue? Conservatives need not apply? An example of how liberalism leads to only one point of view being accepted. [list](For instance, the professor at Colorado State University is being surrounded by liberal “ideologues” [using Pooey’s terminology] saying that freedom of speech should be protected. However, these people who love this freedom soo much are not to found in Harvard President Lawrence Summers case. I guess only Liberal speech should be protected.)

Do you really want to continue thinking the Oregon Petition as anything credible? I mean, seriously, let me quote again from here;

[b]When questioned in 1998, OISM's Arthur Robinson admitted that only 2,100 signers of the Oregon Petition had identified themselves as physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, or meteorologists, "and of those the greatest number are physicists." The names of the signers are available on the OISM's website, but without listing any institutional affiliations or even city of residence, making it very difficult to determine their credentials or even whether they exist at all. When the Oregon Petition first circulated, in fact, environmental activists successfully added the names of several fictional characters and celebrities to the list, including John Grisham, Michael J. Fox, Drs. Frank Burns, B. J. Honeycutt, and Benjamin Pierce (from the TV show M*A*S*H), an individual by the name of "Dr. Red Wine," and Geraldine Halliwell, formerly known as pop singer Ginger Spice of the Spice Girls. Halliwell's field of scientific specialization was listed as "biology."

So this outdated survey is barely verifiable and most of the petition names aren't valid to begin with. It would be dishonest to continue using this as some kind of support on your consensus of scientists.

Horrible Iraq connection, by-the-way.

When you said:Careful, because there are many radical connections to the UN. In fact, a Marxist spy help start the UN. The meditation room was built and funded by the Theosophical Society which was founded by Madam Blavatsky, who influenced Nazi occultism and views Lucifer as an angel of light, a good guy, and the God of the Bible as an evil entity. The “connection” argument is a two edged sword. Because it alos extends into the sites you link us to as well, follow the money and it goes to anti-capitalist wackos just as much as some money may go back to corporations. This entails a fallacy if I am correct, I cannot think of which one it is right now.

Hmm, conspiracy theory anyone?

140 you listed are composed of nations that are socialistic, Marxist, theocratic (islamo-fascist nations), so I would take 140 nations with a grain of salt. Which of those don’t take 70-percent of their peoples hard-earned money, or allow woman to vote and drive? You said:Because as we all know, those 140 nations are just as unbiased as science, right!?

Tony Castalino, you know that Democrats started more wars and Republicans pulled us out or ended more wars, right?

Britain heads the Kyoto Treaty, we may be a socialist democracy but our roots are still firmly in capitalism, that is what cannot be denied. So why would a wholly capitalistic nation spearhead this treaty?
You do realise though, that 140 out of approx 180 is nearly 80% of the world's nations? Are you telling me we're all deluded in some way BUT yours is the self righteous one? Oh please.

[Pale RIder]

[QUOTE=Pooeypants]Life in the past was also very different from what it is now, human beings most certainly hadn't evolved back then so your point is moot.

When one considers the natural cycles of the earth itself, the life on the earth at any given time is completely irrelavent...we are moot. We are still as unable to effect the earth's climate as we are to have any real effect on any natural force...

[Pooeypants]

When one considers the natural cycles of the earth itself, the life on the earth at any given time is completely irrelavent...we are moot. We are still as unable to effect the earth's climate as we are to have any real effect on any natural force...

I agree, we are insignificant in geological timescale but it doesn't mean our pollution hasn't upset the balance of nature that will go on to affect our progeny in the near future.

[Nono]

When one considers the natural cycles of the earth itself, the life on the earth at any given time is completely irrelavent...we are moot. We are still as unable to effect the earth's climate as we are to have any real effect on any natural force...

This statement is based entirely on faith since there's no way to be certain. We're all in the process of conducting the required research right now, and the results will eventually be forthcoming. Maybe PI is right, maybe he's wrong. He doesn't know and neither do I. But if he's wrong, by the time he realizes it it will be too late.

Faith-based denial makes for lousy policy.

[asterix404]

Ahhh so no one did read my post before except for someone who only commented that it didn't matter cuz we were not going to live for ever. Everything horrable and catasrophic that has ever happend in the Earth, the Earth has fixed. It is built and designed with this in mind, which is why when I said the only thing short of nuclear war, I ment that that was the only way to physically change the Earth.

As far as a method of science this is how is works, since I too study at a Unversiy, phsyics actuilly. Somthing happens or something is realized. "Summers too hot" At that point an idea is formed as to why... "Cows are realeasing too much methain" Then data is gathered about every aspect of this and analysied... "Cows are/are not producing too much methain because" It goes up for peer review with people who would know a lot about a certain subject that the papper is linking... "I am very good at this certain area and this whole thing is wrong and here is why". Then a new idea gets formed... "Global warming are humans effecting the temerture of the planet based on short term and long term data". Basicly is goes like this is most cases : Something happens, explination, research to back it up, papper set up for review, dismissed or excepted for publishing. Science is almost purely an action reaction system. This of course leads to division in teh scientific community... thus you will have about an equal number of people currently agree or dissagreeing on things they really don't know much about right now. Enistien's theroy of E = mc^2(gamma - 1) took almost 40 years to be excepted in the scientific community. So really... is there global warming... who knows... if the earth getting hotter in the last 30 eyars averagly... well yes, could this be due to nature... no one I think will ever know... has the level of CO2 in the air increased, well yes... due to un natural things? Maby... I mean this is why debating this sorta thing is silly. One half will be able to get scientists who won't admit to something they don't know to be fact, and the other you will get are willing to go out on a limb and back it up.

[Mr.Vicchio]

There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production– with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.
The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.
http://www.globalclimate.org/Newsweek.htm

That's hard science, with facts, and what to do about this global problem before it's too late.