Global warming, global cooling

Status
Not open for further replies.
2minkey said:
given the precedents and standards that jim has set, i'd say that these few days of ridiculously hot weather is proof positive that global warming is real, and imminent doom is at hand!

it's obviously anthropomorphic too!
Click to expand...

Cased closed. :thumbup:

Thanks for settling it once and for all.
 
randomJACKASS said:
You show me where I have ever said I am convinced of global warming being proved? You won't be able to because I have never said it. I know it is heresy but all the same that is the kind of guy I am so....
Click to expand...

Then you DO have a lucid, non-condescending, rational comment on MY POST #366 lurking around in that head of yours which has yet to manifest itself. Please avail us of that knowledge if you would, please.

Do you have anything that refutes the post? Shows other opposite anomalies occurring elsewhere in the world?

Or how about MY POST #376 and the effect of sunspots on Earth's climate? What have you in refutation of that science?

Anything whatsoever?

Do you want to have a discussion or do you just want to exchange barbs?
 
I really see no potential for discussion. If you'd been paying attention I have always said I think GW is a theory yet to be proven, yet I tend to think that as pollution goes it behooves us to err on the side of caution.

You on the other hand are 100% convinced you are right, as per usual, and you are going to hammer us with a gazillion links and quotes that "prove" your "rightness", then go around gloating about how you've done so. What is the fucking point already?
 
spike said:
Cased closed. :thumbup:

Thanks for settling it once and for all.
Click to expand...

Yes. I especially enjoyed his links, graphs, and illustrations in support of his contentions. They were absolutely riveting!

Imagine that. Three thousand record setting hot days in a single month -- the same month -- which offsets the 3,000 record setting cold days. Whoda thunk it?!?!? It's an absolute miracle I tell ya! A miracle!

I stand corrected. His irrefutable proof was overwhelming. The colors of the graphs bright and intense almost to the point of blinding.

The graphs were so concise and clear; and I was astounded by the level of detail.

And the illustrations! Must I bring up the illustrations? MAGNIFICO!!!! FANTASTICO!!!! <mmmmmmuuuah!>

Need I say more?
 
I will add though, that IF you are right and we are not even capable of effecting climate changes, then WTF is this?

jimpeel said:
What if your efforts to decrease global warming are successful; and those efforts throw the Earth into another ice age wherein millions, and possibly billions, perish from the Earth? Will you feel any responsibility or will you feel satisfaction?
Click to expand...

Either we can or we can't which is it?
 
randomJACKASS said:
I really see no potential for discussion. If you'd been paying attention I have always said I think GW is a theory yet to be proven, yet I tend to think that as pollution goes it behooves us to err on the side of caution.

You on the other hand are 100% convinced you are right, as per usual, and you are going to hammer us with a gazillion links and quotes that "prove" your "rightness", then go around gloating about how you've done so. What is the fucking point already?
Click to expand...

The point is that I am not a sheep and I don't follow the masses or their environmental religion.
 
randomJACKASS said:
I will add though, that IF you are right and we are not even capable of effecting climate changes, then WTF is this?



Either we can or we can't which is it?
Click to expand...

We can't.

The question was rhetorical; and geared to your ethics and morality rather than the success or failure of any effort by humans to affect global warming.

You failed to answer the question.
 
randomJACKASS said:
I will add though, that IF you are right and we are not even capable of effecting climate changes, then WTF is this?

Either we can or we can't which is it?
Click to expand...

We got rid of CFCs and the ozone hole is still there. It was there before CFCs but that's another story. Why isn't it gone if we can have an effect on the environment?
 
spike said:
You follow the other masses and their anti-environmental religion. ;)
Click to expand...

I am not anti-environmentalism. I am pro-life -- not the one you are thinking of but pro-living-your-life-without-the-interference-of-sniveling-ninnies-who-want-to-run-your-life pro-life.

Let me live my life and you live yours. If you are a Vegan and want to eat vegetables that are organically grown, more power to ya. Just don't come to my table at the restaurant and make faces and comments because I am digging into a tasty steak.

If you want to recycle, and waste one of the Earth's most precious resources, do so. Who am I to stop you?

I, on the other hand, do not choose to recycle and I thus preserve that resource.

I do not tell you what to do so don't tell me that I should live as you do. Mind your own business.
 
jimpeel said:
I am not anti-environmentalism. I am pro-life -- not the one you are thinking of but pro-living-your-life-without-the-interference-of-sniveling-ninnies-who-want-to-run-your-life pro-life.
Click to expand...

Nope, I'm pro-life. You are anti-life. Living responsibly and requiring others to be responsible for their actions protects all life.

If you want to recycle, and waste one of the Earth's most precious resources, do so. Who am I to stop you?
Click to expand...

Recycling is now wasting resources. :rofl3:

I, on the other hand, do not choose to recycle and I thus preserve that resource.
Click to expand...

Oh you're fighting the good fight by making sure all those resources get buried in the landfill instead of getting used again. You're like a superhero.

I do not tell you what to do so don't tell me that I should live as you do. Mind your own business.
Click to expand...

Your pollution and irresponsibility affects more than just you so how about acting a little rational. If you want to turn your own home into a filthy dump go right ahead.
 
ceilingcat.jpg
 
Global warming as mass neurosis

SOURCE
JULY 1, 2008

Global Warming as Mass Neurosis

By BRET STEPHENS

Last week marked the 20th anniversary of the mass hysteria phenomenon known as global warming. Much of the science has since been discredited. Now it's time for political scientists, theologians and psychiatrists to weigh in.

What, discredited? Thousands of scientists insist otherwise, none more noisily than NASA's Jim Hansen, who first banged the gong with his June 23, 1988, congressional testimony (delivered with all the modesty of "99% confidence").
[Global Warming as Mass Neurosis] AP

The New True Believers

But mother nature has opinions of her own. NASA now begrudgingly confirms that the hottest year on record in the continental 48 was not 1998, as previously believed, but 1934, and that six of the 10 hottest years since 1880 antedate 1954. Data from 3,000 scientific robots in the world's oceans show there has been slight cooling in the past five years, never mind that "80% to 90% of global warming involves heating up ocean waters," according to a report by NPR's Richard Harris.

The Arctic ice cap may be thinning, but the extent of Antarctic sea ice has been expanding for years. At least as of February, last winter was the Northern Hemisphere's coldest in decades. In May, German climate modelers reported in the journal Nature that global warming is due for a decade-long vacation. But be not not-afraid, added the modelers: The inexorable march to apocalypse resumes in 2020.

This last item is, of course, a forecast, not an empirical observation. But it raises a useful question: If even slight global cooling remains evidence of global warming, what isn't evidence of global warming? What we have here is a nonfalsifiable hypothesis, logically indistinguishable from claims for the existence of God. This doesn't mean God doesn't exist, or that global warming isn't happening. It does mean it isn't science.

So let's stop fussing about the interpretation of ice core samples from the South Pole and temperature readings in the troposphere. The real place where discussions of global warming belong is in the realm of belief, and particularly the motives for belief. I see three mutually compatible explanations.

The first is as a vehicle of ideological convenience. Socialism may have failed as an economic theory, but global warming alarmism, with its dire warnings about the consequences of industry and consumerism, is equally a rebuke to capitalism. Take just about any other discredited leftist nostrum of yore – population control, higher taxes, a vast new regulatory regime, global economic redistribution, an enhanced role for the United Nations – and global warming provides a justification. One wonders what the left would make of a scientific "consensus" warning that some looming environmental crisis could only be averted if every college-educated woman bore six children: Thumbs to "patriarchal" science; curtains to the species.

A second explanation is theological. Surely it is no accident that the principal catastrophe predicted by global warming alarmists is diluvian in nature. Surely it is not a coincidence that modern-day environmentalists are awfully biblical in their critique of the depredations of modern society: "And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart." That's Genesis, but it sounds like Jim Hansen.

And surely it is in keeping with this essentially religious outlook that the "solutions" chiefly offered to global warming involve radical changes to personal behavior, all of them with an ascetic, virtue-centric bent: drive less, buy less, walk lightly upon the earth and so on. A light carbon footprint has become the 21st-century equivalent of sexual abstinence.

Finally, there is a psychological explanation. Listen carefully to the global warming alarmists, and the main theme that emerges is that what the developed world needs is a large dose of penance. What's remarkable is the extent to which penance sells among a mostly secular audience. What is there to be penitent about?

As it turns out, a lot, at least if you're inclined to believe that our successes are undeserved and that prosperity is morally suspect. In this view, global warming is nature's great comeuppance, affirming as nothing else our guilty conscience for our worldly success.

In "The Varieties of Religious Experience," William James distinguishes between healthy, life-affirming religion and the monastically inclined, "morbid-minded" religion of the sick-souled. Global warming is sick-souled religion.

Write to [email protected]

See all of today's editorials and op-eds, plus video commentary, on Opinion Journal.

And add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum.
Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A15

Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top