http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=265956



I know many, probably most, on TVNLs believe global warming to be unarguable scientific fact, but I can't ignore the many voices speaking out against this position. I'm always suspicious when DEBATE itself is discouraged, and when a topic has such wide and unanimous Corporate Media support. I'm just trying to look at the 'other' side of the non-existent debate.

The question in, are the voices relevant? WHO are the voices? How many are there really? If their ideas are valid, why are the not published in journals?


Debate is good, up to a point. But when you try to debate someone who thinks 1+1=157, then you realize it can just be helpless.

I have, and ive realized these people are utterly uncredible, and one should really follow the money funding their studies.

I like how they used Kilimanjaro as an example- How much closer to the equator could they get. No mention of the Arctic or Antarctic. Same nonsense and credibility that gives credence to the
conspiracy theory that Head deeply rooted in the sand (Being polite here), man has no affect on the planet- he is above reproach because his shit doesn't think- no -STINK.

Like NYGG said- Follow The Money. A change in US policy to go along with more leaders (Australia is the latest), insurance companies, hydro producers etc.- who are preparing for the worst. Glaciers in Canada are receding at such a rate that soon there will be no more rivers in summer on the prairies, water wars between Canada and the US will become heated and the repercussions from this will be astronomical.

The cost to us now would be hard if we were to start to change our ways of manufacturing wealth through lying, cheating and stealing into an policy which would put all decisions of monetary concern secondary to the damage that will be enacted upon the only thing that sustains us but has no legal voice- the earth- our home and only land. Being honest is not elitist humans true nature and so he has no qualms about what he does to get what he needs or desires.

It's just a question of how much he can rape from mother earth.

Other than that there is no real debate- just a lot of hopeless lost people trying their best to be masters of their own little world.

All monetary decisions should be guaged with Nature first -----Man- time to wake up. There's a third tree god didn't warn us about- the tree of civilization's absurdity- the one we helped grow and nurture. Quest for cash growing on the money tree- which of course we know you can't eat.

So when the times come to count all your cash, better hope you still have something to spend it on! It ain't much good in a busted world.

Everybody is funded by somebody, aren't they? Is a UN-funded scientist more credible than a privately-funded scientist? I'm not a scientist, and can't prove for myself whether globwarm is real, or not. I've heard good arguments from both sides, and think there are hacks on both sides, as well. I DO believe this has become a heavily politicized subject where the data has been manipulated to fit arguments, and where the pro-warming crowd seem to have some big $$$'s behind them--as evidenced by the overwhelmingly pro-warming coverage in the Mass Media.

What brought this topic about is an on-going 'debate' I've had w/a co-worker about this. Last year, when the USA was hit by an unusually high # of severe hurricanes, he declared the debate to be "OVER", and questioned my intelligence and sanity for disagreeing. However, the COMPLETE absence of hurricanes THIS YEAR gave me the ammo to say to him, "Well, I guess global warming isn't occuring after all."

He spluttered and stammered, "Just because there haven't been any hurricanes this year doesn't prove anything!" (which is EXACTLY what I said about last year--and got called 'nuts' for saying!)

So, we have someone (and I think there are many out there, like this) who used an unusually (unusual, NOT unheard-of) heavy hurricane season to 'prove' his point, but when there is an unusually light hurricane season, it DOESN'T prove his opponents point. A curious use of logic, there.



I agree, with this. I don't, however, think it applies to the non-existent global warming debate. I believe that this kind of mentality prevents reason from entering into the equation. Pro-warming folks try to equate skeptics (and, yes there ARE credible skeptics out there) to flat-Earth proponents. Really, I think the 1+1=157 sentiment applies more to pro-warmers than skeptics. These are people who have NO idea how complicated climate science is, and how LITTLE science really knows about it. Most of the skeptics AREN'T claiming THEY know enough about the climate to predict what the weather will be like decades from now...whereas pro-warming scientists DO make this claim. What side is more credible:
1. The side that claims no power to see the future?
2. The side that claims the power to see the future?

*Disclaimer*: I think that VERY powerful interests (Fascist Globalists) have much to gain (hence, the heavy Corporate Media pro-warming campaign) from implementation of global warming policies, so this is a purely academic discussion. I DO see some form of carbon-limits to be forced on the American people, at some point, which will impose hardship on use 'regular' citizens. If something is detrimental to freedom and free markets, it usually gets approved.

To make things worse, we have people using science in a deceptive manner. They make points that sound scientific, and sound like they make sense, but to those in the field, they are laughable.

For example, the middle of the greenland ice sheet is increasing in size. This would make one think "wow, greenland is growing" When in reality, the rapid evaporation from melting at its edges condenses at the higher elevations and increases the mass at the middle, even though there is still a net loss of ice coverage. Its just taking advantage of an uneducated public. (this is both no fault, and a fault of our own)

We cant expect people to know everything, but people are far to accepting and neglect critical thinking, or they only apply critical think to that which they disagree, but fail to challenge what they want to accept/believe.

Yes and no. I tend to wonder more about what their motives are.

So does the media give them money?

No single year can predict anything, its all about long term trends. Also, we need to remember to look at the rest of the world, and we cant neglect feedbacks and forcings.

ITs good that you called him out. To many people use single year events to prove stuff. Like I said, hurricanes are a single factor in global warming, and is in now way the best indicating factor, and like I said, until I see the date for the rest of the world, we shouldnt make conclusions about the 2006 season.

True.



Real debate happens in the scientific arena, and on this, there is little because the vast majority KNOW there is warming, to this, there is no doubt. The only doubt now is why, even then, its points very much to man.

I dont think this is an accurate statement.
Actually, the whole Global warming theory perdictions are being fulfilled. Remember, in science we make a hypothesis, and form a theory in which we make claims as to what we think will happen. And so far, we are right. We are not saying in 2092 it will be 120 degrees in the northern hemisphere with eastern winds at 23 mph and a relative humidity of 45%. We are making very general perdictions that we have seen come true.
The side that has followed the scientific process as opposed to the side who throws their arms up and says "How can we know?"

As this is my field of study, I prefer it remain academic! However, another post would be welcome and warranted if you wanted to discuss "who is to gain" and the issue about free markets and liberty!

Great topic and thank you for keeping it intelligent and civil!

I equate free-markets and liberty with each and every individual having the ability to purchase products based on a variety of reasons. I know people who CHOOSE to drive a hybrid, at more expense than buying a 'regular' car, due to their personal belief that the added cost of 'saving' the Earth is worth it. I respect that. I know folks who ride their bike around, or use mass-transit, for the same reasons. I respect that. Others use scientific/moral arguements to try and convince me to change MY habits. I respect that. What I DON'T respect is a group lobbying MY elected reps into passing laws that take away MY freedom of choice. What I respect even LESS is a foreign body like the elitist-created and owned, U.N.-ELECTED bureacrats (most from countries w/out ANY history of Liberty and w/different morals/values than my country) pressuring MY reps into taking away MY freedom of choice.

We hear how democracy is such a great thing, and I ask: "Whats more democratic than the feedom of open markets and liberty?"

The problem I have w/pro-warmers is that they want to impose TOP-DOWN solution on us all. If the American people REALLY feel that global warming--due to carbon emissions--is a clear and present danger, won't they respond through market-based decisions?

I think that 'environmentalists'--through decidedly NON-free market methods--have done such an effective job of preventing true alternative energies (nuclear, esp.) from being developed, and from stiffling (no new refineries built in 25+ years, bans on exploration, etc) the use of the energy source we do have (petrol), and from promoting the usage of ineffective 'alternatives' like wind and solar, that we are MUCH futher away from developing new, more efficient fuel sources than we would have otherwise been. Now, we're hearing cries that the Govt needs to embark on a huge boondogle in pursuit of alternative energy, when the Govt--at the behest of well-funded green lobbyists--is the entity that has been the biggest obstacle to finding alternative energy sources! Amazing, the way people think! If we are forced--again, through decidedly NON-free market methods--to curtail energy usage, we'll have FAR fewer resources to put towards finding a truly alternative source.

I'm somewhat of a 'conspiracy nut', and wonder what the current 'green' movement's true aims really are. They complain about carbon-based fuels, yet also are against the cleanest most efficient alternative: nuclear. They seem to promote agendas that would cause regular folks hardship, which is EXACTLY what limits on carbon-fuel consumption would do. What causes regular folks more harm?:
1. The oil co. that provides a product wanted by the FREE-MARKET (i.e., the people)
2. Policies that drastically increase the COST of this free-market demanded product
What is better for working-class people?:
1. Cheap, abundant energy, provided by the free market
2. Artificially expensive, state-controlled energy


I think of today's 'Green' movement as a PC, state-approved religion. If you are part of this religious movement, you should be very pleased at the gains you've made in such a short time span (roughly, since the UN's first Earth Day in 1970), with bright prospects going forward.

When our actions effect those in other countries, dont they have a right to do something about it?

No. Some people, no matter how much evidence you show them, wont believe you. Also, the "free market" is and has been a failure.
Read up on nuclear, its not all that viable. We have no disposal place for the waste and the plants have a very limited lifespan.

Ineffective? Why? If renewable received the same subsidies that fossil fuels did we would all have solar cars and wind powered homes! The problem is that new technologies are stiflled by the lobbying power of oil/coal. We are still forced to use the government because its the one thing we have some control over, but as usual, people are to apathetic and love their consumer driven lifestyle to do anything about this issue.

Wanted? Whats our option?

Cheap? Thats a joke. Combine the amount we pay in subsidies, the cost to our health, the cost to our planet, etc...Its far from cheap. Abundant? I wouldnt count on it for long.

Nothing more than a cheap ad hom.


Like I said, the discussion was going good, and this rant doesnt even belong in this topic, which is why i said if you wanted to discuss THIS it should be elsewhere. So, with that said, do you have anything more on global warming?

Actually, there no longer exists such thing as a free market, and what has failed has been collectivism/cartelism/fascism disguised as 'reform'. So-called progressives/liberals are (and have been) in bed w/Big Corps just as much as 'conservatives'. What, pray tell, would YOU force on everyone in lieu of free markets?





If, by saying, 'our actions' you mean bombing another country, then YES they do have a right to do something. If you mean by me driving a gasoline powered car, do 'they' have the right to make me stop, then "no". I don't recall our Constitution covering anyone but American citizens, and I our elected Reps should be serving their constituents, not foreigners.




I have, and it is. Thats why the Green Religion is against it.







I agree! This is what happens when NON-free market forces prevail.






So, WE ARE THE ENEMY! I admit--I LOVE my consumer driven lifestyle! Guilty as charged! I wonder, how much electricity are you using to maintain YOUR lifestyle? You've said your wife is a lawyer. I assume you two make decent money? How many cars and what types do you two own? How big of a place do you live in? Do you fly? Like I said, I have MUCH respect for those who live the way they want others to. I have less respect for hypocrites who want SOMEONE ELSE to sacrifice. I'll never understand why so many 'liberals' think poverty is noble. Probably because they've never experienced poverty.








I consider it akin to the bogus War On Terror, War On Poverty, War On Drugs, War On [fill in the blank]: all used as instruments by Elites to get We The People to give up what few rights we have left. All noble-sounding causes that draw well-intentioned, but misguided/misinformed folks who proceed to lobby for curtailing THEIR, as well as MY, liberty. I think it speaks VOLUMES about the ignorance of modern-day Americans (and our Govt-run Ed system) that so many don't realize that the climate has, indeed, been in a CONSTANT state of flux--forever! Or, that carbon-levels have no correlation to temps. That WATER VAPOR is, by far, the largest 'greenhouse' gas. Facts rarely convince religious fanatics, unfortunately.



But a true ad hom.

Regulation. Weve seen free markets before, and we learned they must be regulated.





Global warming effects everyone, they have a right to defend theirselves if our pollution is causing it.


Another chap ad hom? Please, spare me. What exactly did you read? It wouldnt possibly be an "agenda" book would it?

But if we let the free maret rule, those with the most money win!



We love it, until we have to deal with its concequences. As little as possible. Fuck no. 1, saturn SC2 Gets 40 mpg. I havent driven it in almost a year. 1000sq ft. NO! Train. Poverty isnt normal, however I believe people should live more simply, or just smarter.


Tell me you didnt just use the water vapor argument..... This is one of these "scientists find laughable" arguments, and I dont blame you, but those who make you think water vapor is relevant.

Ask yourself, why does it matter if it is the strongest and most abundant?

Water vapor naturally regulates itself. It never (normally) naturally gets to high or low. When temps get warmer, there is more evaporation (therefore cooling) and we then get more rain. If there is too little water vapor, then more is diffused out of the seas, and water vapor increases. Because of this cycle, it doesnt effect overall global temps, it doesnt add to the greenhouse effect, it just keeps it stable. It doesnt stay in the atmosphere long enough to have a long term effect. CO2, on the other hand, has an athospheric lifespan of over 100 years, which allows for the abundant concentrations in the atmosphere.

Its like having a campfire, and you regularly place logs on to keep the fire going. When you add them regularly, its like water vapor. If you start adding more, faster, the fire will be more intense. You break the equilibrium.



Thats the things about ad homs, they are unproveable opinions that are used to distract from the debate and are most often used when no other argument can be presented.