Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 52

Thread: AAGWers just lost all the credibility they had with me

  1. #1
    Glom's Avatar
    Glom is offline Insert awesome title here
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    11,286

    AAGWers just lost all the credibility they had with me

    Quote Originally Posted by [url=http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,11813903%5E7583,00.html
    This article[/url]]The earthquake and tsunami apparently had something to do with global warming, environmentalists say, caused of course by greedy American motorists.
    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.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    16,643

    Re: AAGWers just lost all the credibility they had with me

    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.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    30,007
    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.
    Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

  4. #4
    Glom's Avatar
    Glom is offline Insert awesome title here
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    11,286
    Well there's me told. :^o ops: 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.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    15,801

    Re: AAGWers just lost all the credibility they had with me

    Quote Originally Posted by Glom
    [...] AAGW [...]
    AcronymFinder: AAGW Air-to-Air Guided Weapons
    0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...
    Skepticism enables us to distinguish fancy from fact, to test our speculations. --Carl Sagan

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    966

    Re: AAGWers just lost all the credibility they had with me

    Quote Originally Posted by 01101001
    Quote Originally Posted by Glom
    [...] AAGW [...]
    AcronymFinder: AAGW Air-to-Air Guided Weapons
    Whoa, Greenpeace is starting to mean business! :P

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    30,007
    Quote Originally Posted by Glom
    Well there's me told. :^o ops: 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.
    Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    4,253
    It looks like you're right Glom that Greenpeace representatives are commenting on this. Here too!

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    18,329
    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.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    4,253
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn
    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!

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    3,039
    Wow. Stupid, callous, and in general woo^2.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    795
    Quote Originally Posted by dgruss23
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn
    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!
    Actually I don't see what they said as "jumping on a bandwagon."

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    4,813
    Did any of you actually read the article? Here's two paragraphs containing the context of Glom's quote in the original post:

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerard Baker
    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

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    4,253
    Quote Originally Posted by Celestial Mechanic
    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.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Ocean Shores, Wa
    Posts
    5,646
    Quote Originally Posted by dgruss23

    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/r...p?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
    Quote Originally Posted by by Reuters
    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.
    “It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.” ― Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    4,253
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    Global warming is bad science.
    You're absolutely correct as this paper and this paper have thoroughly demonstrated.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,212
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn
    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.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    4,253
    Quote Originally Posted by Demigrog
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn
    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.
    I just googled on "Friends of the Earth" - quoted in your article - and found they are engaged in this nonsense . :roll:

  19. #19
    Glom's Avatar
    Glom is offline Insert awesome title here
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    11,286
    Stop Greenpeace! Stop Greenpeace!

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    966
    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.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,295
    Quote Originally Posted by Glom
    Stop Greenpeace! Stop Greenpeace!
    See if the French are willing to help. :wink:

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    9,084
    So what does AAGW an acronym for---like we don't have enough already?

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    4,253
    Quote Originally Posted by sarongsong
    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.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    675
    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:

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    2,527
    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.

  26. #26
    Glom's Avatar
    Glom is offline Insert awesome title here
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    11,286
    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.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    8,774
    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...

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    14,122
    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.
    Rules For Posting To This Board
    All Moderation in Purple

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    139
    dgruss23 wrote:
    "I just googled on "Friends of the Earth" - quoted in your article - and found they are engaged in this nonsense . :roll:"



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

    C.

  30. #30
    Glom's Avatar
    Glom is offline Insert awesome title here
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    11,286
    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.

Similar Threads

  1. Transference of Credibility -- Has anyone else encountered this?
    By Fooglmog in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 2011-Feb-10, 06:31 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2009-Feb-23, 06:40 PM
  3. Credibility difference
    By NEOWatcher in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2007-Jun-14, 05:22 PM
  4. Gravitational lensing credibility
    By czeslaw in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 2005-Dec-15, 09:19 AM
  5. Lost the vision..lost the will..lost the nerve
    By DukePaul in forum Small Media at Large
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 2005-May-16, 08:35 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •