PDA

View Full Version : AAGWers just lost all the credibility they had with me



Glom
2005-Jan-01, 12:54 PM
The earthquake and tsunami apparently had something to do with global warming, environmentalists say, caused of course by greedy American motorists.

:evil: Sickening. Anyone with half a brain cell knows that global warming has no effects on earthquakes. That they would exploit such a disaster to benefit their own agenda brings a new low to the shady tactics emloyed to force AAGW down the public's throats.

Maksutov
2005-Jan-01, 01:13 PM
Very sickening.

Just as disgusting as the individuals here who have seized on this catastrophe to promote their pet woowoo hypotheses.

All people who are out of touch with reality don't have any credibility with me.

Fortunately evolution has a way of dealing with folks who ignore reality.

But it takes a while.

ToSeek
2005-Jan-01, 09:45 PM
Oh, give me a break! For all you know this is someone on the caliber of a GLP poster saying this nonsense, and you're using it to smear global warming in general. How is this different from saying that all Muslims are evil because a handful of them are terrorists? Worse than that, you're doing the equivalent of deciding that all Muslims are evil because you read somewhere that someone says that some of them are terrorists.

If we're going to talk about global warming, let's stick to the facts and the science and not take the worst excesses of either side's believers as the norm.

Glom
2005-Jan-01, 10:30 PM
Well there's me told. :^o :oops: I apologise.

But I'm still sickened. I bet it was Greenpeace. They're about the level of GLP. But they never had any credibility with me in the first place.

01101001
2005-Jan-01, 10:31 PM
[...] AAGW [...]
AcronymFinder (http://www.acronymfinder.com/): AAGW Air-to-Air Guided Weapons

Lycus
2005-Jan-01, 10:52 PM
[...] AAGW [...]
AcronymFinder (http://www.acronymfinder.com/): AAGW Air-to-Air Guided Weapons
Whoa, Greenpeace is starting to mean business! :o :P

ToSeek
2005-Jan-01, 11:42 PM
Well there's me told. :^o :oops: I apologise.

But I'm still sickened. I bet it was Greenpeace. They're about the level of GLP. But they never had any credibility with me in the first place.

I don't blame you for being sickened. If I didn't find it so utterly laughable, I'd be sickened, too. (And if I found out that someone who should know better said that - like any significant environmental organization - then, yes, I would be sickened.) But it's unfair to blame all AAGW proponents for what a couple of wackos have (supposedly) said.

dgruss23
2005-Jan-01, 11:52 PM
It looks like you're right Glom that Greenpeace representatives are commenting (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6760323/) on this. Here too! (http://edition.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/12/27/tsunamis.environment.reut/)

Van Rijn
2005-Jan-02, 12:17 AM
Well, to be fair, dgruss, I don't see anything there suggesting that global warming caused the earthquake, only that they believe human action makes the effects of the tsunami worse.

Having said that, Greenpeace spouts plenty of woo-woo. They repeatedly spout nonsense about nuclear power, for instance - statements that are obviously wrong, not subject to serious debate. The attack on Bjorn Lomborg after writing "the Skeptical environmentalist" is very similar to attacks on skeptics by Hoagland, Planet Xers, and so on.

dgruss23
2005-Jan-02, 12:30 AM
Well, to be fair, dgruss, I don't see anything there suggesting that global warming caused the earthquake, only that they believe human action makes the effects of the tsunami worse.

You're right - which is why I didn't say greenpeace said that. I generally choose my words with care and in this case that's why I used the word "commenting". :) I was pointing out that Greenpeace representatives are jumping on this tragedy as a means to pound their GW drums.


Having said that, Greenpeace spouts plenty of woo-woo.

They're definitely not coming at these issues from a scientific point of view! :o

Gullible Jones
2005-Jan-02, 12:49 AM
Wow. Stupid, callous, and in general woo^2. :evil:

Spacewriter
2005-Jan-02, 03:41 AM
Well, to be fair, dgruss, I don't see anything there suggesting that global warming caused the earthquake, only that they believe human action makes the effects of the tsunami worse.

You're right - which is why I didn't say greenpeace said that. I generally choose my words with care and in this case that's why I used the word "commenting". :) I was pointing out that Greenpeace representatives are jumping on this tragedy as a means to pound their GW drums.


Having said that, Greenpeace spouts plenty of woo-woo.

They're definitely not coming at these issues from a scientific point of view! :o

Actually I don't see what they said as "jumping on a bandwagon."

Celestial Mechanic
2005-Jan-02, 06:32 AM
Did any of you actually read the article? Here's two paragraphs containing the context of Glom's quote in the original post:


There is plenty of authority to blame for the devastation caused by the Sumatran earthquake this week. Governments in Bangkok, Jakarta and Colombo will shoulder some of it. Governments farther afield will be inculpated for the poverty of their response. Media organisations will be attacked for being too callous and too mawkish. Unsurprisingly, perhaps the most inviting target is the US.

In the past three days I have been impressed by the originality of the latest critiques of the evil Americans. The earthquake and tsunami apparently had something to do with global warming, environmentalists say, caused of course by greedy American motorists. Then there was the rumour that the US military base at Diego Garcia was forewarned of the impending disaster and presumably because of some CIA-approved plot to undermine Islamic movements in Indonesia and Thailand did nothing about it.

This is a commentary on the "Bash AmericaFirst Crowd", not a critique of global warming or its adherents, wacky or otherwise. Please, please, please, read articles first before jerking those knees!
[-X

dgruss23
2005-Jan-02, 04:21 PM
Did any of you actually read the article?

(snip)

This is a commentary on the "Bash AmericaFirst Crowd", not a critique of global warming or its adherents, wacky or otherwise. Please, please, please, read articles first before jerking those knees!
[-X

Of course I picked up on the intent of the article, but that only leads us into the area of politics we're supposed to avoid. Glom's point was about what some environmental groups are saying - not about the authors point of view.

Spacewriter, I don't think Greenpeace et al we're jumping on a bandwagon ... they're already on that wagon. My point was that they take a tragedy like this and use it as an opportunity to highlight their environmental concerns.

Jerry
2005-Jan-02, 10:21 PM
Spacewriter, I don't think Greenpeace et al we're jumping on a bandwagon ... they're already on that wagon. My point was that they take a tragedy like this and use it as an opportunity to highlight their environmental concerns.

That seems fair to me, since Ann Ridenour and her team of cherry pickers, who have finally admitted there is a green house effect, have been telling us about the monetary advantages of a warmer earth.

By Molly Bentley

11 December, 2002
BBC News Online, in San Francisco Fluctuations associated with climate warming are behind the Earth's mysteriously expanding waistline, scientists said at the American Geophysical Union (AGU) fall meeting in San Francisco this week…

Source: Copyright 2004, Inter Press Service
http://www.climateark.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=37375

Date: December 16, 2004

New and updated satellite data from Greenland, the Canadian Arctic and Antarctica show parts of these regions are rapidly melting and contributing three times as much than previously believed to sea level rise.

"This is the first time researchers have been able to get real data on this," said Waleed Abdalati, a researcher at the Goddard Space Flight Centre of the U.S National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)…

"It's the most remarkable change that has been observed in the Arctic thus far," said Josefino Comiso of NASA's GSFC. ...

Comiso now measures this ice cover decline at 9.2 percent per decade, up from a previous figure of 8.9 percent per decade in 2000.

Published on Wednesday, September 22, 2004

Antarctic Glaciers Melting Faster - Study
WASHINGTON - Glaciers once held up by a floating ice shelf off Antarctica are now sliding off into the sea -- and they are going fast, scientists said on Tuesday

Two separate studies from climate researchers and the space agency NASA

Although it would be foolish to assume a direct cause - effect relationship, It is just as irresponsible to state the opposite: We are well aware filling up dams, dumping desalination brine in old mines, and rerouting massive amounts of water causes tremors.

A massive redistribution water on the earth's surface will certainly increase stress-related events world wide, and yes, that means more earthquakes and tsunamis during the realignment period.

Did this realignment cause the tsanami? Not directly - tectonic plates move. Did it contribute to the timing? Probably - The severity? Maybe. Do we know enough about all the variables to call hydrocarbon burning a controlled scientific experiment? Not on your life! Global warming is bad science.

dgruss23
2005-Jan-02, 11:07 PM
Global warming is bad science.

You're absolutely correct as this paper (http://www.cspg.org/deFreitas_climate.pdf) and this paper (http://www.oism.org/pproject/review.pdf) have thoroughly demonstrated.

Demigrog
2005-Jan-03, 04:48 PM
Well, to be fair, dgruss, I don't see anything there suggesting that global warming caused the earthquake, only that they believe human action makes the effects of the tsunami worse.

Well, the claims that higher sea levels increased the devastation from the tsunami are apparently not consistant with fact... assuming CATO's facts are in fact facts (I vote that all news articles contain references from now on... )sea levels are declining in that region (http://www.cato.org/new/12-04/12-28-04r.html).

dgruss23
2005-Jan-03, 06:32 PM
Well, to be fair, dgruss, I don't see anything there suggesting that global warming caused the earthquake, only that they believe human action makes the effects of the tsunami worse.

Well, the claims that higher sea levels increased the devastation from the tsunami are apparently not consistant with fact... assuming CATO's facts are in fact facts (I vote that all news articles contain references from now on... )sea levels are declining in that region (http://www.cato.org/new/12-04/12-28-04r.html).

I just googled on "Friends of the Earth" - quoted in your article - and found they are engaged in this nonsense (http://www.climatelawsuit.org/lawsuit.htm). :roll:

Glom
2005-Jan-03, 11:09 PM
Stop Greenpeace! Stop Greenpeace!

Lycus
2005-Jan-03, 11:31 PM
I'd like to go with Glom to visit an environmentalist rally, just to see what happens. I'd bring a camera along, of course. :)

Parrothead
2005-Jan-04, 12:19 AM
Stop Greenpeace! Stop Greenpeace!

See if the French are willing to help. :wink:

sarongsong
2005-Jan-04, 12:24 AM
So what does AAGW an acronym for---like we don't have enough already?

dgruss23
2005-Jan-04, 01:14 AM
So what does AAGW an acronym for---like we don't have enough already?

All Anthropogenic Global Warming. It applies to the extreme position taken by some that the entire component of any measured warming must be caused by CO2 increases attributed to human activities.

Morrolan
2005-Jan-04, 01:23 AM
i'm somewhat vexed (to put it mildly) by the way how 'Greens' criticize fossil fuel burning as well as nuclear power and consistently manage to dance around the answer to the question: 'What alternatives do you propose?" since they are obviously well aware that filling the planet with windmills is hardly a solution and we can't all go back to horse drawn carts.

i remember back in Holland they opposed a windmill park in the sea because it would likely kill birds and also opposed moving a major airport to an artificial island off the coast as it would 'change sea currents'. of course they continue to oppose the existing airport without giving alternatives.

that's what makes most of these NGO's so bloody annoying: a lot of handwaving and accusing without providing solutions. :roll:

Enzp
2005-Jan-04, 04:06 AM
I have a personal problem with Greenpeace. Every time I go to the beach, minding my own business, lying on the sand, the Greenpeace guys come along and try to haul me back into the water.

Glom
2005-Jan-04, 11:36 AM
Apocalyptic Anthropogenic Global Warming specifically. While the anthropogenic bit is still being debated, the apocalyptic bit rests purely in the scare stories of the media and messiah complexes of politicians. Not even the IPCC predicts impending doom.

Argos
2005-Jan-04, 12:56 PM
AAGWers just lost all the credibility they had with me

Did they have any credibility with you in the past? :)

Sorry, I couldn´t refrain myself...

captain swoop
2005-Jan-04, 02:46 PM
Greenpeace were active on Teeside last year. A ship dismantling company got a contract to dispose of some US navy fleet auxiliaries (Tankers and Stores ships.

By the time they got here they were 'Toxic Death Ships' loaded to the hatch covers with PCBs, Asbesatos and Mercury. Local MPs and Press jumped on it.

In one TV interview local activists were complaining about the polution they would cause. In the background the company involved wese busy cutting up an old oil exploration platform about 20 stories high, it makes the ships look like toys but the MP and Greenpeace spokesperson were banging on about the hazards from the 'toxic ships' and complaining thet the Americans were 'dumping' them on Teeside. This also ignores the fact that the tendering for the contract was quite tight and several US companies were complaining that the contract went abroad.

Another complaint was that the ships would stop business investing in the area as they would be worried about the 'pollution' from the ships.
Within a couple of miles of the site are Europes largest blast furnace with its associated Iron ore terminal, Coke plant, Steel furnaces, pipe mills, plate mills and slag tipping. Europes largest petrochemical complex bringing in North Sea Oil and Gas as well as handling huge OBO ships bringing in Crude and dozens of products tankers taking out all kinds of scary stuff from the refineries. 3 RORO ferry terminals and a car import terminal. Somehow when a company is thinking of moving to Teesside I think don't think they say well, it might be one of the biggest seaports in Europe and it may be one of the largest industrail areas in europe with all the supporting industries and infrastructure we need but, hey, they dismantle old freighters in a shipyard, let's go somewhere else.

It's next door to Hartlepool Nuclear powerstation as well, I used to be able to see it across the estuary from my bedroom window.

crateris
2005-Jan-04, 10:05 PM
dgruss23 wrote:
"I just googled on "Friends of the Earth" - quoted in your article - and found they are engaged in this nonsense (http://www.climatelawsuit.org/lawsuit.htm). :roll:"



Looks like the John Edwards types will have a good income for a long time to come.

C.

Glom
2005-Jan-04, 11:07 PM
I saw a three minute bit on Channel Four about how "The climate is changing! And we are to blame!" Not even Michael Mann would express it with that wholesale certainty and sure none of AAGW supporters here would either (except maybe MT). The ironic thing was that the main content of the infomercial was about energy saving practises in the home like replacing those old obselete incandescent light bulbs with flourescent ones, which I feel do actually light the room better. That's all good practise for its own sake. It's just cringeworthy when polemical broadcasters start spouting about the dead certainty of apocalypse to force us to do it.

They also said that if everyone replaced their incandescent light bulbs with flourescent ones, Sizewell B would be eliminated. AAARRRRGHHH!! The point was carbon dioxide and they talk about eliminating the need for the one major power station not putting out any! Sizewell B is so cuddly! (At least as cuddly as an old generation II reactor can be.)

So here's my prescription for energy saving measures, which are only sensible.
Put timers on your boilers. They don't need to be on all the time, particularly during the night.
Make sure your home is well insulated. If most of your home is heat tight, you can afford to open a window to prevent the well documented detrimental effects of spending too much time in small poorly ventilated rooms. At least heat is only escaping through that window rather than the entire suprastructure.
Get flourescent light bulbs all round. They not only light a room better but they also don't get as hot and so are safer.
Replace all traffic light junctions with roundabouts and traffic light managed junctions with magic roundabouts.
Remove the lighting from the motorways. Driving on an unlit motorway at night is where the fun is. It's boring when the sodium is doing the job.
Design a TV that doesn't consume masses of power when on standby. What do they need all that power for? All they need is to illuminate a little LED and have the sensor ready to receive signals from the remote.

Morrolan
2005-Jan-05, 01:10 AM
Design a TV that doesn't consume masses of power when on standby. What do they need all that power for? All they need is to illuminate a little LED and have the sensor ready to receive signals from the remote.[/list]

alternatively: take the trouble to switch off the TV completely. tube tv's on stand-by are a fire hazard aside from the fact that they use power...

and what is this nonsense that everything nowadays has to remain on standby all the time??
some equipment i have can't even be switched off completely, which forces me to switch off the power from the socket source all the time. [-X

dgruss23
2005-Jan-05, 01:17 AM
dgruss23 wrote:
"I just googled on "Friends of the Earth" - quoted in your article - and found they are engaged in this nonsense (http://www.climatelawsuit.org/lawsuit.htm). :roll:"



Looks like the John Edwards types will have a good income for a long time to come.

C.

Yes ... without a doubt. These types of lawsuits are simply a giant money grab. Look for example at the "Big Tobacco" settlement (http://www.no-smoking.org/nov99/11-19-99-4.html). Note that the money was supposed to go toward education and trying to reduce teenage smoking. But its actually being used for other things - money grab!! :evil:

I'd say these global warming lawsuits could become the next example of this type of fraud. Fortunately, unlike the tobacco case, there is plenty of solid evidence that contradicts GW claims.

dgruss23
2005-Jan-05, 01:20 AM
Greenpeace were active on Teeside last year. A ship dismantling company got a contract to dispose of some US navy fleet auxiliaries (Tankers and Stores ships.

By the time they got here they were 'Toxic Death Ships' loaded to the hatch covers with PCBs, Asbesatos and Mercury. Local MPs and Press jumped on it.

:lol: Typical Greenpeace. Their antics would be harmless fun, if the weak standard of scientific evidence they adopt were not so lovingly accepted by most of the mainstream media.

Jerry
2005-Jan-05, 04:57 AM
AAGWers just lost all the credibility they had with me

Did they have any credibility with you in the past? :)

Sorry, I couldn´t refrain myself...

Those of us who grew up in the nuclear, or chemical, or heavy metal dumping grounds have a different, but also biased prospective. We don't see drastic changes, only slightly above normal deviations, but for me and the eight roomates I shared dorm space with that translates to seven children or grandchildren with serious birth defects - I also have an uncle who stood downwind of a nuclear test and came down with leukemia, so its out there...I guess if your lucky you can avoid it, but I am glad the raptor population has recovered, mercury levels are down in fish, and so many polluted streams are being recovered.

It is a small earth. We should be more careful about what we do to it.

ToSeek
2005-Jan-28, 07:01 PM
The Big Lie: Tsumani and Global Warming (http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-05o.html)


The only people linking the Tsunami with Global Warming are global warming skeptics looking for a straw man to burn their opponents with.

They call global warming junk science - but I call this junk analysis that's driven by a political agenda and has nothing to do with science and the debate of stated facts.

Glom
2005-Jan-28, 07:08 PM
Well that's us told.

Lurker
2005-Jan-28, 07:31 PM
Isn't there enough going on in the world without trying to fabricate new things to worry about?? The subduction in that area is quite active and complex. There have been extremely large tsunamis in that area in the past and will almost certainly be extremely large tsunamis in that area in the future.

It can be shown that, based on the nature of the quake that occured, a tsunami of roughly that magnitude would most likely be the result. Any attempt to link the magnitude of this event to global warming is preposterous, if for no other reason than our understanding of these events don't allow us to predict or actually measure the precise amount of energy released or converted into tsunami form...

ToSeek
2005-Jan-28, 08:07 PM
Well that's us told.

Perhaps it was pointless to raise the subject again, but the article seemed too relevant not to reference it here.

jrkeller
2005-Jan-28, 10:50 PM
The Big Lie: Tsumani and Global Warming (http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-05o.html)


The only people linking the Tsunami with Global Warming are global warming skeptics looking for a straw man to burn their opponents with.

They call global warming junk science - but I call this junk analysis that's driven by a political agenda and has nothing to do with science and the debate of stated facts.

If you think that's bad, check this one (http://nujournal.net/core.pdf)out.

I've reviewed it and it is total garbage.

Lurker
2005-Jan-28, 10:56 PM
If you think that's bad, check this one (http://nujournal.net/core.pdf)out.


Wow... makes you wonder how the planet managed to survive previous eipsodes when it was significantly warmer than today!! :o

8)

mike alexander
2005-Jan-29, 12:25 AM
Look, we already know that a planet can explode. Look at Krypton. Over sixty years of solid documentation. Most printed in four-color.

PhantomWolf
2005-Jan-29, 05:41 AM
What I love about GW are the contradictions it uses so that it proves that no matter what happens weather/climatewise, it's because of Global Warming.

In the Northern Hemisphere Glaciers have been retreating for over a hundred years, the fault of Global Warming.

Down here in New Zealand our Glaciers have reversed that and are now lengthening once more, this too is the fault of Global Warming.

This last December here was the coldest on record since 1959 (Global Warming) while this Janurary is having Highs that are in some places close to record, obviously because of Global Warming.

If the sea level gets higher in a place, then it's Global Warming, but if it drops somewhere else, this is also Global Warming (I'll forget to point out all the medeival seaside European Ports and Castles that are now far inland due to sea level drops over the past 500 years)

If it floods then it's the fault of Global warming, but if there is a drought, well it must be global warming.

Massive icebergs and melting iceshelfs, well that has to be Global Warming, but a thickening Iceshelf? Oh, that's Global Warming too.

Massive Snowstorm freezing Europe? Global Warming
Mild Winter? Global Warming

Is there evidence for Global warming? Yeah there is, because I just sneezed so it has to be the fault of Global Warming.

Glom
2005-Jan-29, 12:02 PM
:lol:

That was the point I was making about the use of the term "climate change", it establishes a neat tautology, whereby any change can be blamed on ours sins.

It's also the selective invocation of chaos theory. The climate is linear enough for it to be affected easily by a select group of variables, but chaotic enough that what may happen could be anything.

They ask what's with our animosity towards them, but I ask why they expect us to buy any of this?

Argos
2005-Jan-29, 12:09 PM
Talking about credibility... (http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/01/27/climate.temps.reut/index.html)

Glom
2005-Jan-29, 12:13 PM
They're getting desperate. They've stepped up the scare stories.

Glom
2005-Jan-29, 12:27 PM
I have an even thing. We nearly had a white Christmas last year, which we haven't had for something like fifty years. So they go on about climate change. But hang on, if now we are seeing something that happened 50 years ago, doesn't that imply the climate is going back to what it was.

Fram
2005-Jan-29, 01:20 PM
Glom, don't take an accident as a proof of anything. This has been briefly discussed in the other thread about AAGW. Take statistics, repeating things, strings of accidents, averages, whatever, but please don't take one thing as proof of anything. Of course this works the other way around as well :D

Argos
2005-Jan-31, 12:06 PM
A propos (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/30/books/review/30CAHILLL.html) (registration required)

Nergal
2005-Feb-01, 08:27 PM
They're getting desperate. They've stepped up the scare stories.

Oh lordy: UK Urges US Action on climate (http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/02/01/england.climate.reut/index.html)


"Nothing less than a radical change in how we generate and how we use energy will be needed," she said, adding that the cost of action would be far less than the cost of inaction.

Scientists have said that two degrees centigrade of warming is already expected.

They have predicted that above that level the warming will start to fuel itself, pushing the planet into the unknown as ice caps melt, sea levels rise and weather patterns change at accelerating rates.

The World Wide Fund for Nature said at the weekend that disastrous climate change could kick in within 20 years, leading to possible species wipeout in the Arctic unless greenhouse gas emissions were cut sharply.

A report by international experts last week described the climate as a ticking , and preliminary results of one study said temperatures could rise by up to 11 degrees centigrade.
Can you say, "Unbridled fear-mongering"?

The liberties these people take with what they state as fact amazes me.

SpacedOut
2005-Feb-01, 08:40 PM
Can you say, "Unbridled fear-mongering"?

The liberties these people take with what they state as fact amazes me.

Scares me.

ToSeek
2005-Feb-01, 08:40 PM
Even realclimate (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=115#more-115) is saying that these claims are exaggerated.

Glom
2005-Feb-02, 09:26 PM
Bloody hell. If RealClimate is playing the sceptic on that one, then it transcends crap.