Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 2
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
peter_puck





Joined: 15 Dec 2007
Posts: 82
Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6Reputation: 6.6
votes: 1

PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 10:37 pm    Post subject: Hoax Reply with quote

>Any thoughts, comments, snide remarks?

I am not going to debate the science of this. While I would not consider it totally settled, the view of the vast majority of involved scientists clearly supports the concept of some sort of anthropogenic global warming.

My main question is this. If your "evidence" against global warming is so conclusive, why is the scientific community so fooled?. Its not just the IPCC, it is almost every non-governmental scientific organization in the world (except the Petroleum Engineers). Even Bush and Harper have signed on. Harper may have been fighting cuts in Bali, but he is also spending billions in the arctic in preperation for the melting of the North West passage.

Is there really a left-wing conspiracy so great and powerful that it could pull something like this off.

Another point I could make. Some of the links you provide to support your argument point to a section on Wikipedia about the movie "Great Global Warming Hoax". The sections you refer to are under the section "Assertions in the film". All the article states is that someone said these things in a film. This is not any sort of convincing evidence.
If I read the whole article you quote it is actually very negative towards the movie and the "anti-global warming" point of view. Trying to quote this little section out of context is dishonest.

I have an open mind towards significant anthropogenic global warming, but since every major scientific organization with an opinion supports the theory (except the petroleum engineers), I have to consider it the prevailing view. (although there is little agreement on how bad it is going to be - or even if it will be bad)

And, while I can accept that their are many legitimate scientists who oppose the anthropogenic global warming model, I consider any one who uses the word "hoax" or "junk science" to be a quack. Right up there with those people who talk about black helicopters.
Bill_in_Calgary





Joined: 18 Jun 2007
Posts: 27
Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5Reputation: 8.5

PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 11:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
My main question is this. If your "evidence" against global warming is so conclusive, why is the scientific community so fooled?. Its not just the IPCC, it is almost every non-governmental scientific organization in the world (except the Petroleum Engineers). Even Bush and Harper have signed on. Harper may have been fighting cuts in Bali, but he is also spending billions in the arctic in preperation for the melting of the North West passage.


Scientists questioning the IPCC don't deny warming has happened. They question the cause and the scaremongering. The public is so wrapped up in this that political leaders MUST look like they also believe in AGW or pay the price at the polls. As for how many scientists are speaking out:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/i.....nateReport

I copied it into a word document and it came to 140 pages.
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 11:46 pm    Post subject: Re: Hoax Reply with quote

peter_puck wrote:
>Any thoughts, comments, snide remarks?

I am not going to debate the science of this. While I would not consider it totally settled, the view of the vast majority of involved scientists clearly supports the concept of some sort of anthropogenic global warming.


I don't consider it completely settled either. As I've stated numerous times, science is not a popularity contest - but since the point is relevant to you, consider the most recent empirical survey by Dr. Sculte: Less than half of published works support AGW

peter_puck wrote:
My main question is this. If your "evidence" against global warming is so conclusive, why is the scientific community so fooled?. Its not just the IPCC, it is almost every non-governmental scientific organization in the world (except the Petroleum Engineers). Even Bush and Harper have signed on.


I question the need for 'scare quotes' around evidence. As far as the scientific community, see my point above. Politicians? Well, politicians are necesarrily influenced by popular opinion - whether the opinion is justified or not.

peter_puck wrote:
]Harper may have been fighting cuts in Bali, but he is also spending billions in the arctic in preperation for the melting of the North West passage.

A couple of things here - one, the issue Northern Soveriegnty is far, far more complex than you're presenting here. Two, do not conflate AGW with actual climate change. I can accept that the world may be getting warmer, or cooler, or both in different places at different times. This is not the same as saying that we are causing it, which is the matter at issue.

peter_puck wrote:
Is there really a left-wing conspiracy so great and powerful that it could pull something like this off.


No great conspiracy here, as far as I'm concerned. It is rather a perfect storm of passionate but misguided supporters, some overly confident scientists, some poll-driven decision making, and some self-interested individuals.

peter_puck wrote:
Another point I could make. Some of the links you provide to support your argument point to a section on Wikipedia about the movie "Great Global Warming Hoax". The sections you refer to are under the section "Assertions in the film". All the article states is that someone said these things in a film. This is not any sort of convincing evidence.


I've seen the film, as well as the Inconvenient Truth. I couldn't find links to the primary source, so I used those. The fact that the people editing the article disagree with the assertions does not make them inaccurate.

Quote:
If I read the whole article you quote it is actually very negative towards the movie and the "anti-global warming" point of view. Trying to quote this little section out of context is dishonest.


I didn't see as out of context. Please see the comment above.

Quote:
I have an open mind towards significant anthropogenic global warming, but since every major scientific organization with an opinion supports the theory (except the petroleum engineers), I have to consider it the prevailing view. (although there is little agreement on how bad it is going to be - or even if it will be bad)


Nothing new here. Even if a plurality of organizations agree that AGW is correct, that only makes it the prevailing view, not fact.Also, I've noticed you've made references to Petroleum Engineers twice. Why?

peter_puck wrote:
And, while I can accept that their are many legitimate scientists who oppose the anthropogenic global warming model, I consider any one who uses the word "hoax" or "junk science" to be a quack. Right up there with those people who talk about black helicopters.


Yet you will allow and support emotionally charged and hyperbolic speech from those who support the theory. To be clear, (most) of the scientists who believe the theory, or acknowledge its' possibility, are not the problem. It is the NGOs, AGW Leaders (Gore, Suzuki, et al), and the UN IPCC people that my comments are directed at.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Sun Dec 23, 2007 11:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Another point I would add is there is a strong vested interest on the part of scientists to continue the AGW myth since the majority of their research funding depends on convincing politicians of the supposed gravity of the situation. That's why the "executive summary" portion of all of the IPCC reports are always much more dire in their predictions than the evidence inside supports.

It doesn't help the situation to have all the anti-capitalists advocates, anti-globalization freaks, anti-corporate communists and other assorted moonbats using "global warming" to push their wacked-out agendas.

-Mac
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 2

Goto page Previous  1, 2  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


The Current State of the Science...

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB