1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What's happening to that "consensus" on global warming?

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by old_tony, Dec 21, 2007.

Page 2 of 14
  1. zeke12

    zeke12 Guest

    It isn't a scientific paper -- and I'd bet plenty of the scientists wouldn't be happy to see their names on it. It's a list of quotations from media sources. Probably 90 percent of which don't say what the title of the report says.

    So, you have the title: "Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007"

    What people read is that 400 prominent scientists don't think man is contributing to global warming. But, of course, that's a lie.

    The third guy quoted says this:
    One of India's leading geologists, B.P. Radhakrishna, President of the Geological Society of India, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. "There is some evidence to show that our planet Earth is becoming warmer and that human action is probably partly responsible, especially in the matter of greenhouse gas emissions.

    Yeah, guess he really disputed "global warming myths." Shit like that is probably why you have this handy disclaimer at the beginning.

    Disclaimer: The following scientists named in this report have expressed a range of views from skepticism to outright rejection of predictions of catastrophic man-made global warming. As in all science, there is no lock step single view.

    And there's the straw man...

    Weak sauce, tony.
     
    zeke12, Dec 21, 2007
    #13
  2. Chi City 81

    Chi City 81 Guest

    [​IMG]
     
    Chi City 81, Dec 21, 2007
    #14
  3. Football_Bat

    Football_Bat Well-Known Member

    Brazil gets its ethanol from sugar cane, which is a much more efficient source than corn. Obviously, Brazil has the climate to grow sugar cane on a massive scale.
     
    Football_Bat, Dec 21, 2007
    #15
  4. sportschick

    sportschick Active Member

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 15, 2014
    sportschick, Dec 21, 2007
    #16
  5. Fenian_Bastard

    Fenian_Bastard Guest

    This would be Jim Imhofe and his lads.
    He stopped being a serious person a long time ago.
     
    Fenian_Bastard, Dec 21, 2007
    #17
  6. zeke12

    zeke12 Guest

    Nice report, there, tony. It gets better and better the more I read.

    One of its' 400 "scientists" weighs in...

    Meteorologist Chris Allen of Kentucky Fox affiliate WBKO dismissed what he termed "consensus nonsense" on global warming. "But, just because major environmental groups, big media and some politicians are buying this hook, line and sinker doesn't mean as a TV weatherperson I am supposed to act as a puppy on a leash and follow along," Allen said in his blog titled "Still Not Convinced" on February 7, 2007. "All of this (global warming alarmism) is designed to get your money and then guilt you in to how you live your life," Allen explained. Allen has the Seal of Approval of the National Weather Association. "As I have stated before, not only do I believe global climate change exists - it has always existed. There have been times of global warming and cooling," Allen concluded. (LINK) "If there is a consensus among scientists about man-made global warming, then at what temperature would they all agree the earth should be before they say global warming no longer exists? The answer - there is not a scientific consensus and will never be. And if there were one, they would not agree as to what temperature the earth needs to be ‘normal' again," Allen wrote in another blog post on June 5, 2007. (LINK)

    That's right. A TV weather guy from Kentucky. On a BLOG. Well, shit, I'm convinced.
     
    zeke12, Dec 21, 2007
    #18
  7. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    This is complicated. But to paraphrase something James Surowiecki did in the New Yorker a year or so ago, and which spurred me to read up on this, we have created such a corrupt fucked up system that we can't even produce the cheapest form of ethanol. Fuel is a lot cheaper in Brazil, because instead of using corn-based Ethanol, they use sugar cane-based ethanol. Its much cheaper to produce and generates way more energy per unit than corn-based ethanol does. Many cars in Brazil run on Ethanol alone, at half the price of gas.

    We can't do that here because our politicians have their hands in the corn and sugar industries' pockets. They keep the price of domestic sugar so high in the U.S. as a boon to the industry that we can't make it cost-effective to use for ethanol, the way Brazil does. Our government actually guarantees producers a fixed price for domestic sugar and they put such high quotas and tariffs on foreign sugar that we can't just import cheaper third-world sugar. It keeps sugar prices twice as high in the U.S. than it is in the rest of the world. It's had ridiculous consequences. The candy industry in the U.S. has been decimated, with thousands of jobs lost to foreign makers. And amazingly, it has made us less fuel efficient.

    We can't even just simply import sugar-based ethanol to get around the high price of sugar they have foisted on us. Congress imposed a tariff of 54 cents a gallon on sugar-based ethanol to protect the corn producers from competition. I can't remember the exact numbers, but there was a study from Iowa or Iowa State that suggested that if we just got rid of the tariffs, prices would fall by 10 to 20 percent and we'd use hundreds of millions more gallons of ethanol.

    This is one area, you actually can't criticize the Bush Administration (one of the few). They tried to eliminate the ethanol tariff last year, and Congress said "Hell no!" Too many Congressmen getting greased by too many lobbyists. And we all lose. Not that he is alone, but one thing to keep in mind when making your presidential considerations -- Barack Obama was one of the ringleaders among a group of Senators who campaigned to make sure the tariff stayed in place. He is getting greased but good for his efforts. The domestic sugar producers have gotten hugely rich because of Congress and with the boondoggle they get, they have a lot more money to spread it around to their benefactors. It insures that they keep getting this corrupt (and what should be illegal) treatment.

    The whole thing is beyond absurd. We actually have a policy in which Congress is paying billions of dollars in subsidies (our tax dollars) to try to induce us to use more ethanol... And at the same exact time, it has enacted tariffs and quotas that guarantee we use less. And as backward-ass as that is, it also just leaves us more dependent than ever on unstable oil-producing countries that screw us every which way they can. With the ethanol tariffs, we actually end up imposing taxes on fuel from countries that are friendly toward us (Say Brazil). But we don't tax fuel from countries that hate our guts and are antagonistic toward us (say Venezuela).

    It is America at its most fucked up.
     
    The Big Ragu, Dec 21, 2007
    #19
  8. zeke12

    zeke12 Guest

    It's still getting better. Here's another of their quotations which purport to differ from the consensus on global warming:

    The Dean of Pittsburgh's Graduate School of Public Health, Donald S. Burke, rejected climate fears relating to the spread of infectious diseases in 2007. "There are no apocalyptic pronouncements," Burke said, according to a December 5, 2007 Boston Globe article. "There's an awful lot we don't know," Burke added. The article explained that Burke "noted that the 2001 study found that weather fluctuation and seasonal variability may influence the spread of infectious disease. But he also noted that such conclusions should be interpreted with caution."

    Yeah, he really took Al Gore to the woodshed on that one.
     
    zeke12, Dec 21, 2007
    #20
  9. Fenian_Bastard

    Fenian_Bastard Guest

    This thing is hilarious.
     
    Fenian_Bastard, Dec 21, 2007
    #21
  10. D-Backs Hack

    D-Backs Hack Guest

    As Zeke has so artfully pointed out, it's worse than I thought.

    If someone turned this in for a sophomore English term paper, they'd be flunked. Seriously.

    In a sane country, if a Senate committee minority released this shit, it would be held accountable by the political press corps.

    Once again, in a sane country.
     
    D-Backs Hack, Dec 21, 2007
    #22
  11. JR

    JR Well-Known Member

    Yeah, but we have Ragu posting his "If a hundred words would do, one thousand is much better"

    To paraphrase one of my former colleagues, "I asked him for a thread and he knitted me a sweater"

    Jesus, this a a message board, not a PHD dissertation committee.
     
    JR, Dec 21, 2007
    #23
  12. zeke12

    zeke12 Guest

    To be fair, Ragu is posting about something wholly other than this fraud of a report, which seems to be based on equal parts suck, fail and TV weather guy's BLOGS!

    And yeah, that report would get an F in any freshman-level college class.
     
    zeke12, Dec 21, 2007
    #24
Page 2 of 14
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page