Winter Storm Misinform

[hazlnut]

As the U.S. experiences continued harsh winter weather, far too many people in the news media engage irresponsible commentary when they suggest that the vicissitudes of winter weather cast doubt on human caused climate change.

Derisive and sarcastic remarks about winter storms and global warming really only show a person’s ignorance with regard to the elementary distinction between climate and weather.

I find it appalling when media pundits dismiss decades of peer-reviewed research and consensus with misleading “talking points” from industry front groups and lobbyists. The opinions of the dominant majority of the world's scientific establishment are marginalized with straw man arguments.

[FlaGator]

The history of the Earth casts doubt on human caused climate change. The evidence of a causal relationship between climate change and human behavior is sketchy to say the least. But never fear, there are one or two members of CU that agree with you.

[Rebel Yell]

I noticed Saturday that the temperature here was 66 degrees, which was 4 degrees above normal. Not that big a deal, then I noticed the record high was 88 degrees in 1918. My wife, who never comments on things like that says, "Huh, Global Warming."



Look, hippy, if you want to stop pollution so we have clean drinking water, recycle to be a good steward of the Earth, drive a Hybrid vehicle to save on fuel mileage, I applaud you. Let's just stop pretending that we're saving mankind from bursting into flames.

If your global warming leaders are serious about what they preach, why would they say," What industries are doing will destroy the Earth, but for a fee we'll allow it."? If they really believed what you are buying into, why allow it to happen for a price?

[Gingersnap]

I find it appalling when media pundits dismiss decades of peer-reviewed research and consensus with misleading “talking points” from industry front groups and lobbyists. The opinions of the dominant majority of the world's scientific establishment are marginalized with straw man arguments.

I take it that you are new to the whole "science" thingy. I'm a chemist in air quality analysis. If I had a buck for every crack pot idea that influenced public policy in air quality regulations, I'd could have retired years ago.

There is no consensus in science. Consensus is a social activity. Science is simply a suitable explanation for an observation. That explanation has to be verifiable, repeatable, and falsifiable. Those aren't my personal rules, that's the way it's done outside of theoretical physics.

Global warming is largely a full-employment act for grant writers, bureaucrats, and academicians. There was virtually no reputable peer review on the seminal papers that launched the GW hype. This is why those data sets were subsequently withdrawn after the math was shown to be in error. But there's a lot of money in GW as well as some fame and glory and that's why it's still rolling along. This certainly isn't the first time that the media and governments have bequeathed "official" status on bad science. It happens more often than you think.

[hazlnut]

There is no consensus in science. Consensus is a social activity. Science is simply a suitable explanation for an observation. That explanation has to be verifiable, repeatable, and falsifiable. Those aren't my personal rules, that's the way it's done outside of theoretical physics.

Where do I start... I thought CU was a place conservative thinkers came to discuss how to become relevant and be taken seriously again... it's not about liberal or Al Gore, it's about fact vs. fiction...

You can not back up any of your statements with facts from any legitimate scientific publication. The current consensus is the result of years of rigorous peer-review among academics and researchers.

I guess you're new to the whole "logical" argument thingy... See, you can't just make stuff up when presenting your case. And you can't make your case by presenting a misconstrued version or misrepresentation of another position... That's called a Straw Man argument. (I'm not even sure what you said constitutes as much...)

The oil and energy industries have had a decade to diversify and invest in new technologies. They decided to invest in a PR campaign to prolong the inevitable and support fools like James Inhofe...

The "Green Economy" and related industries are relatively new--and, yes, they're going to take full advantage of the current situation. However, to imply that Global Warming has been a decade long conspiracy to cash in when Dems get control is really thin. (perhaps restarted)

If the fossil fuel industry had been more proactive about self-regulating, they could have protected themselves from government regulation, which, by its nature will be overzealous at first... Unfortunately, some companies will go under. Coal is really going to have a hard time. And sadly it's the workforce that will be hurt the most, not the execs that made bad R&D decisions.

If conservative thinkers want to be taken seriously, we need to be honest in our critical examination of a policy or idea and not just reject something simply because it's supported by Dems.

When we support bad judgment, incompetence, greed, PR spin, we gain only in the short run--in angry little sound bites at a Palin rally, however when the chickens finally come home, we look like fools standing around scratching our heads wondering where all the WMD's are...

[PoliCon]

fact vs. fiction...

Fact - man made global warming is fiction. Nuff said.

[hazlnut]

Fact - man made global warming is fiction. Nuff said.

Thank you for illustrating (so very succinctly) my point about critical examination of a policy.

Also, nice use of the Nuff Said Fallacy or argumentum ad retardum

[PoliCon]

Thank you for illustrating (so very succinctly) my point about critical examination of a policy.

Also, nice use of the Nuff Said Fallacy or argumentum ad retardum

the nuff said - or as you call it the arumentum ad retardum - argument is always the best approach when dealing with a global warming alarmist - AKA brainwashed retards.

[hazlnut]

the nuff said - or as you call it the arumentum ad retardum - argument is always the best approach when dealing with a global warming alarmist - AKA brainwashed retards.

So, make one... an argument, that is. A logically sound argument. You stated a counter opinion to mine and supported it with "Nuff Said." -- Do you think that makes you sound credible?

That's how we practically gave the country back to the democrats!!!!

Sarah Palin is a brilliant, articulate woman. Nuff Said.
The levees will hold. Nuff Said.
The economy is sound. Nuff Said.
Mission Accomplished. Nuff Said.

When the best and brightest minds tell you that after studying something for 3 decades, they have some concerns--smart people listen and discuss and take action. Republicans could have been way out ahead on this if they weren't so beholden to big oil and energy. They could have been the innovators with incentives that moved energy corps toward self-regulation and visionary technological advancement. That's the greatness of true capitalism and the free-market... The prize goes to the builder of a better mousetrap.

Now we're stuck with the Dems version of the new "Green Economy" with layers upon layers of bureaucracy, government waste and inefficiency.

[PoliCon]

So, make one... an argument, that is.

I have no interest in arguing religion with anyone. It's a pointless and fruitless venture.

A logically sound argument.

http://www.crichton-official.com/spe...talfuture.html

You stated a counter opinion to mine and supported it with "Nuff Said." -- Do you think that makes you sound credible?

lol It was an utter dismissal of your argument.

That's how we practically gave the country back to the democrats!!!!

No - spouting alarmism about the economy, global warming, and vilifying bush is how the democrats won. They didn't win on a single issue. They won on an image.

Sarah Palin is a brilliant, articulate woman. Nuff Said.

yup. Very true.

The levees will hold. Nuff Said.

They did.

The economy is sound. Nuff Said.

It was at the time.

Mission Accomplished. Nuff Said.

It was. :)

When the best and brightest minds tell you that after studying something for 3 decades, they have some concerns--smart people listen and discuss and take action.

lol Unless of course the bright minds happen to have been working with money from an organization which the press demonizes as having a vested interest in skewing the science one way - the way counter to that of the presses expressed opinions - then they are hacks and frauds.

Republicans could have been way out ahead on this if they weren't so beholden to big oil and energy.

BULLSHIT. We'd have been way out in front if we actually had had a conservative for a candidate. The press and the lefties manipulated the early republican primaries which are either open primaries or ones without wait times after registering.

They could have been the innovators with incentives that moved energy corps toward self-regulation and visionary technological advancement. That's the greatness of true capitalism and the free-market... The prize goes to the builder of a better mousetrap.

no - the prize goes to the person who finds the equlibrium between supply and demand. The better mousetrap will not win if the cost is too high.

Now we're stuck with the Dems version of the new "Green Economy" with layers upon layers of bureaucracy, government waste and inefficiency.

WE DON'T NEED A GREEN ECONOMY AT ALL IN THE FIRST PLACE!! lol Carbon is not a pollutant. It does not cause global warming. We are not all going to die in a massive flood caused by the polar icecaps melting. ALL of the climate models are abject failures. They cannot predict tomorrows temperatures when you plug in today's data let alone the temps 20 or 30 years from now.