Other views on global warming

[Pancamo]

The biggest evidence of global warming comes from the USDA hardiness zone maps which are released every year. Compare 20-years ago to today. What you will see are plants that were once never able to survive in NYC growing in Central Park. Plants that could never survive in Michigan are being grown out windows of high rises.

Couldn't that be chalked up to evolution?

Kind of how iguanas and some snakes have thrived in Florida after being released into the wildlife?

 

[WaylonJennings]

Bill Clinton always talked a lot about - probably still does - in his speeches a concept he called "future preference." The vocabulary came from a speech one of his Georgetown professors gave.

Anyway, the concept is that mankind develops and advances when it puts more emphasis on the future than the present. It is what separates, also, developed from underdeveloped worlds.

You can take this to a micro level. If you work out now, you'll be in better health later. If you study now, you're grades will be good and you'll be better off later.

This is a little bit counterintuitive, because we're told so often to "live in the moment" and that people worry too much about the future and don't appreciate the now. And that's true to an extent. But I'll chalk it up to cruel irony.

The fact is, when we try to deny global warming or preserve the concens of the present at the expense of the future, we're engaging in something that human history has shown never, ever works out.

 

[Pastor]

The biggest evidence of global warming comes from the USDA hardiness zone maps which are released every year. Compare 20-years ago to today. What you will see are plants that were once never able to survive in NYC growing in Central Park. Plants that could never survive in Michigan are being grown out windows of high rises.

Couldn't that be chalked up to evolution?

No and you would know that if you decided to do an ounce of research on what a hardiness zone map is. As such, the simple explanation is that the map is of climate zones.

Plants are given a rating to survive in certain climates. If the climate shifts in an area then plants that couldn't grow before will be able to grow now. This has nothing to do with whether a plant evolves and is able to grow in an entirely different climate zone.

 

[JR]

Any self respecting gardener knows about hardiness zone maps.

 

[old_tony]

It's a lot more complicated than just gauging the temperature.

This statement says a lot more than people realize.

Now that the temperatures don't support the theory of global warming, those who worship at the church of global warming have had to shift the argument.

There's a severe thunderstorm (even though there have been severe thunderstorms forever)? Claim that it would have been less severe if not for "global warming."

Snow in areas that almost never see snow? Blame it on "global warming."

And you're so far down on your knees to the church of global warming you don't realize how rediculous you're being.

 

[Pastor]

It's a lot more complicated than just gauging the temperature.

This statement says a lot more than people realize.

Now that the temperatures don't support the theory of global warming, those who worship at the church of global warming have had to shift the argument.

There's a severe thunderstorm (even though there have been severe thunderstorms forever)? Claim that it would have been less severe if not for "global warming."

Snow in areas that almost never see snow? Blame it on "global warming."

And you're so far down on your knees to the church of global warming you don't realize how rediculous you're being.

The argument has never shifted. It has always been about the hardiness zones.

Obviously, you are unaware of this. Thus, this is just one more notch on the old_tony-is-an-ignorant-man belt.

 

[JR]

Next up for discussion: "Evolution: Theory or Hoax?"

 

[WaylonJennings]

It's a lot more complicated than just gauging the temperature.

This statement says a lot more than people realize.

Now that the temperatures don't support the theory of global warming, those who worship at the church of global warming have had to shift the argument.

There's a severe thunderstorm (even though there have been severe thunderstorms forever)? Claim that it would have been less severe if not for "global warming."

Snow in areas that almost never see snow? Blame it on "global warming."

And you're so far down on your knees to the church of global warming you don't realize how rediculous you're being.

I think most of us basically place it in the hands of the vast majority of scientists who know much better than we do, who have dedicated their lives to studying this. It's silly for a bunch of laymen to sit here and argue over thunderstorms.

 

[old_tony]

It's a lot more complicated than just gauging the temperature.

This statement says a lot more than people realize.

Now that the temperatures don't support the theory of global warming, those who worship at the church of global warming have had to shift the argument.

There's a severe thunderstorm (even though there have been severe thunderstorms forever)? Claim that it would have been less severe if not for "global warming."

Snow in areas that almost never see snow? Blame it on "global warming."

And you're so far down on your knees to the church of global warming you don't realize how rediculous you're being.

The argument has never shifted. It has always been about the hardiness zones.

Obviously, you are unaware of this. Thus, this is just one more notch on the old_tony-is-an-ignorant-man belt.

The argument always shifts. You know it and I know it.

But just for fun, let's read just a little bit on "Hardiness zones":

USDA hardiness zones have a number of drawbacks.

Possibly the largest drawback is that they do not incorporate summer heat levels into the zone determination. Sites which may have the same mean winter minima, but markedly different summer temperatures, will still be accorded the same hardiness zone. An extreme example is the Shetland Islands and southern Alabama, which are both on the boundary of zones 8 and 9 and share the same winter minima, but very little else in their climates; in summer, the humid subtropical climate of Alabama is about 20 degrees Celsius hotter than the oceanic climate of Shetland, and there are very few plants that can be grown at both locations. Due to its maritime climate, the UK is in AHS Heat Zone 2 (having 1 to 8 days hotter than 30 degrees Celsius) according to the AHS (American Horticultural Society), whereas Alabama is in Zones 7 to 9 (61 to 150 days hotter than 30 degrees Celsius).

Another problem is that the hardiness zones do not take into account the reliability of the snow cover. Snow acts as an insulator against extreme cold temperatures, protecting the root system of hibernating plants. If the snow cover is reliable (then present during the coldest days), the actual temperature to which the roots are exposed is not as low as the hardiness zone number would indicate. As an example, Quebec City in Canada is located in zone 4 but can rely on an important snow cover every year, making it possible to cultivate plants normally rated for zones 5 or 6, whereas in Montreal, located in zone 5, it is sometimes difficult to cultivate plants adapted to the zone because of the unreliable snow cover.

And, for just a little more fun:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081212/ap_on_re_us/south_winter_weather

 

[SigR]

The dogma of global warming is what's scary. It really has become a religion. You don't need to understand what, where, why or how -- you just need to believe. And if you don't believe, you want the earth to die, obviously.

Does it make anyone else squirm that it is *well known* in the scientific community that presently if you want to get funding to research something, you don't ask for money to research that something, you ask for money to research the effects of global warming on that something.

Does it occur to anyone that there may well be global warming, but the effects of global warming would actually have a positive impact on the world?

Does anyone remember that in the 1970's many were freaked out by the prospect of global cooling?

Does anyone realize that accepting global warming and creating worldwide laws is actually an establishment-upholding mechanism? The point being that if you create a new set of laws, it creates a huge barrier to entry for upstart or innovative firms in various industries that are affected by those restrictions. This is especially apparent in third world nations that haven't yet properly industrialized--we'd be just holding a boot to their neck and more or less telling them that the status quo of foreign exploitation is how it's going to be. No more cheap foreign labor if the world is allowed to industrialize.

Too many smart people are caught up in the rapture of global warming. You don't have to go to idiotic lengths to try to disprove it (see people who use short-term localized weather to make points about global climate), you just need to keep a more open mind about things.

And finally, how do you control the masses? Fear. If leftists aren't afraid of terrorists, the backdoor mechanism could be to play on their environmental concerns.

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

The dogma of global warming is what's scary. It really has become a religion. You don't need to understand what, where, why or how -- you just need to believe. And if you don't believe, you want the earth to die, obviously.

Does it make anyone else squirm that it is *well known* in the scientific community that presently if you want to get funding to research something, you don't ask for money to research that something, you ask for money to research the effects of global warming on that something.

Does it occur to anyone that there may well be global warming, but the effects of global warming would actually have a positive impact on the world?

Does anyone remember that in the 1970's many were freaked out by the prospect of global cooling?

Does anyone realize that accepting global warming and creating worldwide laws is actually an establishment-upholding mechanism? The point being that if you create a new set of laws, it creates a huge barrier to entry for upstart or innovative firms in various industries that are affected by those restrictions. This is especially apparent in third world nations that haven't yet properly industrialized--we'd be just holding a boot to their neck and more or less telling them that the status quo of foreign exploitation is how it's going to be. No more cheap foreign labor if the world is allowed to industrialize.

Too many smart people are caught up in the rapture of global warming. You don't have to go to idiotic lengths to try to disprove it (see people who use short-term localized weather to make points about global climate), you just need to keep a more open mind about things.

And finally, how do you control the masses? Fear. If leftists aren't afraid of terrorists, the backdoor mechanism could be to play on their environmental concerns.

Or, instead of paranoid maunderings, we could all just decide to believe the overwhelming scientific consensus, agree that studies financed by the oil and coal industries are pretty much just worthless propaganda, and get to work on the problem.
(o_t, what's the source on your "hardiness zone" clip? Inquiring minds etc.....)
It has nothing to do with religion. You're making typically unfunny rightist snark into an actual argument?
Wow.

 

[SigR]

The dogma of global warming is what's scary. It really has become a religion. You don't need to understand what, where, why or how -- you just need to believe. And if you don't believe, you want the earth to die, obviously.

Does it make anyone else squirm that it is *well known* in the scientific community that presently if you want to get funding to research something, you don't ask for money to research that something, you ask for money to research the effects of global warming on that something.

Does it occur to anyone that there may well be global warming, but the effects of global warming would actually have a positive impact on the world?

Does anyone remember that in the 1970's many were freaked out by the prospect of global cooling?

Does anyone realize that accepting global warming and creating worldwide laws is actually an establishment-upholding mechanism? The point being that if you create a new set of laws, it creates a huge barrier to entry for upstart or innovative firms in various industries that are affected by those restrictions. This is especially apparent in third world nations that haven't yet properly industrialized--we'd be just holding a boot to their neck and more or less telling them that the status quo of foreign exploitation is how it's going to be. No more cheap foreign labor if the world is allowed to industrialize.

Too many smart people are caught up in the rapture of global warming. You don't have to go to idiotic lengths to try to disprove it (see people who use short-term localized weather to make points about global climate), you just need to keep a more open mind about things.

And finally, how do you control the masses? Fear. If leftists aren't afraid of terrorists, the backdoor mechanism could be to play on their environmental concerns.

Or, instead of paranoid maunderings, we could all just decide to believe the overwhelming scientific consensus, agree that studies financed by the oil and coal industries are pretty much just worthless propaganda, and get to work on the problem.
(o_t, what's the source on your "hardiness zone" clip? Inquiring minds etc.....)
It has nothing to do with religion. You're making typically unfunny rightist snark into an actual argument?
Wow.

It's not my intention to use rightist snarkery. From my perspective, the belief in global warming has many things in common with organized religion. In general, I don't like how the right argues against global warming. It's almost as if they do it out of idle thumb-twiddling and because someone told them that they were supposed to.

I think the big problem with "scientific consensus on global warming" is that people read too much into it. Assuming that we do accept that most scientists believe that the earth is warming, that is merely a scientific consensus that the earth is in fact warming. And I might even give my opponent that fact in a debate. The next two questions that arise from that consensus are the critical ones: Is man causing it? Do we need to do something about it?

This is where science definitely does not reach a consensus, and the final question of whether we should do something about it is not even a question that a scientist ought to be answering. Yet, many who want to follow the global warming hysteria believe that not only have scientists said that there is warming, but that we should do something about it. It's politicians, environmentalists, and people with too much time on their hands who have up to this point made those calls. Nobody asks what the cost is of "doing something", and if they do, they are only looking for a dollar sign. They are immensely preoccupied with the cost of not "doing something", which is a lot less certain than the impact of making laws that make it harder for firms and indivuals to do business.

 

[WaylonJennings]

Again: YOUR PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE THOUGHT IT WAS AN ISSUE THAT NEEDED TO BE DEALT WITH IMMEDIATELY.

Is that not enough?

 

[Batman]

Next up for discussion: "Evolution: Theory or Hoax?"

"Hoax!"

 

[Batman]

Any self respecting gardener knows about hardiness zone maps.

I've known about hardiness zones since I was 13 and saw an issue of Playboy for the first time.

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

As I was saying...
http://firedoglake.com/2008/12/14/inhofe-plays-while-the-boxers-away/


http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/12/scientist-our-conclusions-were-misinterpreted-by-inhofe-co2-but-not-the-sun-is-significantly-correlated-with-temperature-since-1850/
Call me Kreskin.

 

[cranberry]

It's not my intention to use rightist snarkery. From my perspective, the belief in global warming has many things in common with organized religion. In general, I don't like how the right argues against global warming. It's almost as if they do it out of idle thumb-twiddling and because someone told them that they were supposed to.

I think the big problem with "scientific consensus on global warming" is that people read too much into it. Assuming that we do accept that most scientists believe that the earth is warming, that is merely a scientific consensus that the earth is in fact warming. And I might even give my opponent that fact in a debate. The next two questions that arise from that consensus are the critical ones: Is man causing it? Do we need to do something about it?

This is where science definitely does not reach a consensus, and the final question of whether we should do something about it is not even a question that a scientist ought to be answering. Yet, many who want to follow the global warming hysteria believe that not only have scientists said that there is warming, but that we should do something about it. It's politicians, environmentalists, and people with too much time on their hands who have up to this point made those calls. Nobody asks what the cost is of "doing something", and if they do, they are only looking for a dollar sign. They are immensely preoccupied with the cost of not "doing something", which is a lot less certain than the impact of making laws that make it harder for firms and indivuals to do business.

Reducing consumption of fossil fuels, conserving energy, in general, wasting less and being friendly to our environment -- the kinds of things we're being asked to do -- seem like good common sense and good public policy to me. What's the big problem? I don't even see a lot of inconvenience involved.

Even if global warming and its effects turn out to be way overstated, I remain OK with trying to ease up on the destruction of our environment.

 

[hondo]

Again: YOUR PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE THOUGHT IT WAS AN ISSUE THAT NEEDED TO BE DEALT WITH IMMEDIATELY.

Is that not enough?

Oh ... so now you think he's a ****ing genius?

 

[hondo]

The dogma of global warming is what's scary. It really has become a religion. You don't need to understand what, where, why or how -- you just need to believe. And if you don't believe, you want the earth to die, obviously.

Does it make anyone else squirm that it is *well known* in the scientific community that presently if you want to get funding to research something, you don't ask for money to research that something, you ask for money to research the effects of global warming on that something.

Does it occur to anyone that there may well be global warming, but the effects of global warming would actually have a positive impact on the world?

Does anyone remember that in the 1970's many were freaked out by the prospect of global cooling?

Does anyone realize that accepting global warming and creating worldwide laws is actually an establishment-upholding mechanism? The point being that if you create a new set of laws, it creates a huge barrier to entry for upstart or innovative firms in various industries that are affected by those restrictions. This is especially apparent in third world nations that haven't yet properly industrialized--we'd be just holding a boot to their neck and more or less telling them that the status quo of foreign exploitation is how it's going to be. No more cheap foreign labor if the world is allowed to industrialize.

Too many smart people are caught up in the rapture of global warming. You don't have to go to idiotic lengths to try to disprove it (see people who use short-term localized weather to make points about global climate), you just need to keep a more open mind about things.

And finally, how do you control the masses? Fear. If leftists aren't afraid of terrorists, the backdoor mechanism could be to play on their environmental concerns.

Or, instead of paranoid maunderings, we could all just decide to believe the overwhelming scientific consensus, agree that studies financed by the oil and coal industries are pretty much just worthless propaganda, and get to work on the problem.
(o_t, what's the source on your "hardiness zone" clip? Inquiring minds etc.....)
It has nothing to do with religion. You're making typically unfunny rightist snark into an actual argument?
Wow.

It's not my intention to use rightist snarkery. From my perspective, the belief in global warming has many things in common with organized religion. In general, I don't like how the right argues against global warming. It's almost as if they do it out of idle thumb-twiddling and because someone told them that they were supposed to.

I think the big problem with "scientific consensus on global warming" is that people read too much into it. Assuming that we do accept that most scientists believe that the earth is warming, that is merely a scientific consensus that the earth is in fact warming. And I might even give my opponent that fact in a debate. The next two questions that arise from that consensus are the critical ones: Is man causing it? Do we need to do something about it?

This is where science definitely does not reach a consensus, and the final question of whether we should do something about it is not even a question that a scientist ought to be answering. Yet, many who want to follow the global warming hysteria believe that not only have scientists said that there is warming, but that we should do something about it. It's politicians, environmentalists, and people with too much time on their hands who have up to this point made those calls. Nobody asks what the cost is of "doing something", and if they do, they are only looking for a dollar sign. They are immensely preoccupied with the cost of not "doing something", which is a lot less certain than the impact of making laws that make it harder for firms and indivuals to do business.

Sig: don't confuse Fenian with honest questions. It messes with his lockstep liberal view of world affairs.

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

Isn"t there a fake study somewhere you should be publicizing?