One of the best responses to the "global warming isn't happening" people I have seen. *promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Thursday, September 15th, 2011 2:47am PDT - promote requested by Skeeve.

Another defector:

Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming



If man-made global warming is really happening, then you have to agree:

1) somewhere exists a group of scientists who know the precise temperature the earth is supposed to be.

2) these scientists can somehow "set" this temperature by taxing and regulating industries.


BONUS: Do you really think there would ever come a day when the alarmists concede they were wrong, especially after establishing a world climatocracy of near-absolute power? Ha.

TL;DR

Fox News story about 1 scientist disagreeing with the entire community over one sentence.

Goes on to quote Fox News poll (appeal to the masses) that not surprisingly shows that dumb non-scientists think that the fact that scientists don't all agree about something is some kind of proof of something.

I N C O N T R O V E R T I B L E

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php>> ^quantumushroom:

Another defector:
Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming

If man-made global warming is really happening, then you have to agree:
1) somewhere exists a group of scientists who know the precise temperature the earth is supposed to be.
2) these scientists can somehow "set" this temperature by taxing and regulating industries.

1) somewhere exists a group of scientists who know the precise temperature the earth is supposed to be.
---Not the precise temperature--the average temperature.

2) these scientists can somehow "set" this temperature by taxing and regulating industries.
---Don't need to set the temperature--just try to lessen the rate of the obvious temperature rise.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Another defector:
Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming

If man-made global warming is really happening, then you have to agree:
1) somewhere exists a group of scientists who know the precise temperature the earth is supposed to be.
2) these scientists can somehow "set" this temperature by taxing and regulating industries.

BONUS: Do you really think there would ever come a day when the alarmists concede they were wrong, especially after establishing a world climatocracy of near-absolute power? Ha.

Dear Obama, please use David Mitchell's rants as speech material (okay, at least ^this one).

>> ^quantumushroom:

Another defector:
Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming

If man-made global warming is really happening, then you have to agree:
1) somewhere exists a group of scientists who know the precise temperature the earth is supposed to be.
2) these scientists can somehow "set" this temperature by taxing and regulating industries.

BONUS: Do you really think there would ever come a day when the alarmists concede they were wrong, especially after establishing a world climatocracy of near-absolute power? Ha.


Second time of saying this to you - who has ever claimed to know the exact right temperature the earth is "meant" to be? It doesn't even make sense as a statement. "Meant" to be how, in what way? You must be quoting something a knowlessman has said.

Second time of saying this to you as well - you have the wrong target. The politicians are manipulating "climate change" into a money-spinner. But that doesn't mean that climate change is wrong, it means the politicians are wrong.

They and the oil barons are manipulating you and you owe it to yourself to go out and independantly educate yourself. The data is there qm, and it is abundantly clear that there is an anomalous spike in temperature which presents itself around mid 1900s. The only thing left to discuss is why it is happening, and david mitchell is suggesting that no rational human being would simply do nothing when there is even the vaguest chance that we are contributing to the anomaly.

Hate the politicians, not the science they use and abuse to manipulate you with. I hope you listen this time, but i know you won't.

1) somewhere exists a group of scientists who know the precise temperature the earth is supposed to be.


Well, no. Precision isn't the issue, accuracy is. When building a climate model we don't need a precise answer for temperature at a location, we need accurate (though perhaps fairly imprecise) temperatures for many locations over time. This may seem pedantic, but you've wandered into discussing science so you might as well learn the terms.

Do you really think there would ever come a day when the alarmists concede they were wrong, especially after establishing a world climatocracy of near-absolute power?


Sorry, you're talking about some dystopian future ruled by environmentalists? Are you worried about this coming to be? Do you look around at the world and shudder at the enormous power environmentalists are getting? I mean, for whatever you think of climate change theory, surely you have to agree that the climate change movement has been pretty much completely ineffectual at getting anything significant changed or regulated. Near-absolute power, even imagining the passing of quite a bit of time and the world getting disastrously more environmentally conscious, is a bit of a stretch.

Look, I disagree with the "stereotypical environmentalist" on a lot of things - and I think many environmental programs and restrictions and whatever are pointless (recycling, random painful acts of conservation, etc..). But whether or not you like environmentalists or think they'd do a good job running things doesn't effect whether the proposition in question is true.

Me? I think the balance of evidence is currently on the side of global warming becoming a problem in the next 100 years. I think the evidence is strong enough to prompt further research and certain kinds of actions. And I don't mean cutting automotive emissions by 20%. That is really pointless. Cars burning gas is a turd that we need to flush completely and soon (burning oil at the current rate has enough problems, global warming or not) - not slowly polish.

In general, I think that good approaches to fighting global warming (mostly new energy sources) are net wins whether or not they're related to global warming. Nobody is going to regret stimulating the economy by spending on research, technology development, and manufacturing. And if it turns out global warming was happening for some other reason (or not happening at all) we'll be happy to have our Mr. Fusion powered air conditioners and holodecks.

Again, this is all about regulating pollution.
One side says there's evidence we are possibly irreversibly damaging our environment with our pollution.
The other side says that's wrong, and we should be able to pollute as much as we want.
Oh, and regulating pollution would cut into profits, I'm assuming in a major way, considering the well funded opposition.

Or is that oversimplifying too much?

I honestly dislike this pascalwageresque risk assessment argument. To me its as simple as:
a)There is overwhelming evidence supporting anthropogenic climate change.
b)Outcome of higher Co2 levels is complex and difficult to ascertain. - This, I feel, is the major sticking point.

I don't buy the end of the world scare stories. The history of life on this planet suggests its capable of surviving a very different atmosphere and abrupt changes. I also think Humans will find a way to adapt. I do however believe that changes over very short periods of time will result in quite profound levels of suffering. Land will be lost to the sea, dramatic changes in weather will ruin agriculture. Many species of plant and animal will likely die out. The last couple of centuries already looks like a mass extinction event. Humanity will be stressed, resource wars will occur with more frequency and ferocity. The developing world will be hit hardest, but the west will become less comfortable.

To me its just whether we collectively choose to inconvenience ourselves now, or suffer later. Given the wests lack of leadership and the general apathy of the population I think its probably going to be the latter. You can all me Malthus.

Since the mounds of evidence and overwhelming consensus of experts has failed to sway AGW deniers, I can only hope this common sense approach works better.