Shooting at the Holocaust Museum (Now with Global Warming)

[Mr.Bookworm]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/10/museum.shooting/index.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8094076.stm

Abridged version: An 88 year-old white supremacist came in and started shooting at the security guards. He hit one of them, and they returned fire and hit him. They both got taken to the hospital, and the building was evacuated.

The security guard apparently just died.

Motherfucker.

[Lady Cygnet]

What the hell? What was Mr. 88-year-old white supremacist trying to prove anyway?

My heart goes out to the family of the slain guard. He died with honor, protecting those who had come to learn about one of the most horrific events in human history.

[Rejected Again]

Tha old guy was an ass hat. To do something like that at the Holocaust Museum. My condolences the the family of the guard and my honest hope that that old jerk goes to that special part of hell for rapists, murders, and people who talk during a movie!

[Fifthfiend]

Jesus this is like the second one of these in two weeks, and the third since Bamma came into office?

[Wigmund]

This is a horrific event and I hate myself for what I'm gonna diverge into now because it relates to this tragedy as. But wasn't this what Homeland Security was talking about when they released that report about watching right-wing crazies?
DHS Report on Right-wing Extremism (http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/hsa-rightwing-extremism-09-04-07.pdf)
(U//FOUO) Lone Wolves and Small Terrorist Cells
(U//FOUO) DHS/I&A assesses that lone wolves and small terrorist cells embracing violent right-wing extremist ideology are the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States. Information from law enforcement and nongovernmental organizations indicates lone wolves and small terrorist cells have shown intent—and, in some cases, the capability—to commit violent acts.
— (U//LES) DHS/I&A has concluded that white supremacist lone wolves pose the most significant domestic terrorist threat because of their low profile and autonomy—separate from any formalized group—which hampers warning efforts.
— (U//FOUO) Similarly, recent state and municipal law enforcement reporting has warned of the dangers of right-wing extremists embracing the tactics of “leaderless resistance” and of lone wolves carrying out acts of violence.
— (U//FOUO) Arrests in the past several years of radical militia members in Alabama, Arkansas, and Pennsylvania on firearms, explosives, and other related violations indicates the emergence of small, well-armed extremist groups in some rural areas.
And apparently Fox New's Shepard Smith agrees. (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/06/10/fox-news-shep-smith-dhs-report-was-a-warning-to-us-all-but-the-right-went-absolutely-bonkers/)

[shiney]

I was about to post basically exactly what Wigmund did. To expand instead, Rush, O'Reilly, Beck et al are making this country less safe by purposefully inflaming these wackos and then claiming it's just entertainment, or it's just opinion, or that these guys are crazy and they had nothing to do with it. It has nothing to do with partisan politics though - granted they want the downfall of the democratic party but essentially this is about lining their pockets at the expense of the safety of the public.

This was a horrible tragedy and I regret this happened, but it was to be expected with folks like them fanning the flames.

'Fore someone gets all up in my fries about taking this thread somewhat off-course, let's be honest and all admit this is pretty much exactly where it was going to go anyways. Everyone probably feels awful that this security guard died, but beyond a "damn that sucks" circle-jerk there's not a lot of room for discussion of that particular topic.

[Jagos]

Jesus this is like the second one of these in two weeks, and the third since Bamma came into office?

Honestly, would we have heard about this during the Bush administration?

[Wigmund]

A Neo-Nazi shooting up the Holocaust Museum would be big news even during the Bush Administration. It's just that it'd be a one-or-two day blurb before the talking heads would go back to talking about the Army recruiters being shot in Little Rock, how it shows that Al Qaeda is in America recruiting kids from the ghetto, how we need to have Homeland Security watch more Muslims and leftists and definitely not groups like the Neo-Nazis or Ku Klux Klan.

To expand instead, Rush, O'Reilly, Beck et al are making this country less safe by purposefully inflaming these wackos and then claiming it's just entertainment, or it's just opinion, or that these guys are crazy and they had nothing to do with it. It has nothing to do with partisan politics though - granted they want the downfall of the democratic party but essentially this is about lining their pockets at the expense of the safety of the public.

Glenn Beck: Libs blame conservatives for crazy shooter...again (http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/196/26546/)
Rush Limbaugh: Hate-Promoting Left Seizes Chance to Falsely Blame Right for Violence (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_061109/content/01125106.guest.html)

I'd say something, but I need to lie down and stop my pounding headache from reading those twits.

[Fifthfiend]

Honestly, would we have heard about this during the Bush administration?

I'm pretty sure when that first sniper killing in the DC area happened we heard about it pretty much everywhere.

And again the thing that stands out for me among this, abortionist-shooter and that one guy in philadelphia who did the police station killing is that they are all motivated to varying degrees by basically the simple fact that a 1. black 2. (nominal) liberal is in the white house.

Which wouldn't be s'bad if once again we weren't seeing this message where I guess terrorism is I guess kind of okay if you're an angry right-wing white dude whereas this guy does basically the same (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-recruiters-shot3-2009jun03,0,5882312.story) thing and gets charged for fifteen terrorisms.

This is seriously looking a little bit like back in the day when the FBI used to go "Oh what's that a Klan killing? Durper durr we don't know nuffin bout dat" *puts hand in pants* *jerks dick*

Glenn Beck: Libs blame conservatives for crazy shooter...again
Rush Limbaugh: Hate-Promoting Left Seizes Chance to Falsely Blame Right for Violence


I'm seriously glad sometimes that the internet came up with trolling so I know how to characterize shit like this.

[krogothwolf]

Sorry to ask this, but are Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh as really horrible as the interwebs say about them, the most I hear about them is from Jon Stewart and thats just clips and what not.

Second, does it seem like he targetted the guard based on his skin color and shot him first. I feel sorry for the guy and thats just crap that he got targeted probably based on skin colour. At least thats what it seems to me.

[Azisien]

Which wouldn't be s'bad if once again we weren't seeing this message where I guess terrorism is I guess kind of okay if you're an angry right-wing white dude whereas this guy does basically the same (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-recruiters-shot3-2009jun03,0,5882312.story) thing and gets charged for fifteen terrorisms.

This is seriously looking a little bit like back in the day when the FBI used to go "Oh what's that a Klan killing? Durper durr we don't know nuffin bout dat" *puts hand in pants* *jerks dick*

If the circumstances were slightly different I would be inclined to agree with you. Let me pause for a brief moment to mention that I'm speaking based on how I think this would go down in a Canadian court, but I'll take a leap of faith and say that's not drastically different from an American court.

Anyway, he's 88 years old. And he's charged with murder. He's got neo-Nazi connections for most of his life. There's no point wasting tens/hundreds of thousands of dollars charging him with 15 counts of anything, one charge of murder and that's it, he's in jail for the rest of his life.

The dude in the article you linked is 23 years old. And I only read that one article but, based on the details given in it, I won't lose any sleep if he's in jail for the rest of his life.

This doesn't excuse the stereotype corporate white guy doing cocaine and smashing head-on into a black family's mini-van, killing them all and paralyzing the youngest one for life, while he gets away with whiplash and 2 years in prison. Meanwhile black kid has half a joint on him and gets 20 years. Yeah that's retarded. But this case? A non-issue.

What really gets me about this shooting is, according to the few articles I wrote, the security guard that died was holding the damn door open for von Brunn. Like, fuck.

[Fifthfiend]

None of the three recent white right-wing dudes who committed politically motivated attacks meant to inflict terror were charged with terrorism, while the one black muslim guy who did so was.

I'm sure in all of these cases you could do any amount of stretching to excuse why the individual facts of this particular case just don't really merit charges of terrorism. Yet somehow those excuses get hauled out exclusively in the service of white, christian, far-right domestic terrorists, while being nowhere to be found in the case of black muslim domestic terrorists.

[Nique]

I'd say something, but I need to lie down and stop my pounding headache from reading those twits.

Both transscripts are super hypocritical like to this ultra-meta degree. Liberal people spewing vaugely worded cliches about not listening to hate mongers is somehow personally insulting to Rush Limbaugh and is actually in itself a form of hate mongering becasue it targets right wing extremeists?

But then directly implicating the President in anti-semtic activity and very personal accusations about specific liberal people isn't hate mongering, we're to assume I guess?

[Azisien]

None of the three recent white right-wing dudes who committed politically motivated attacks meant to inflict terror were charged with terrorism, while the one black muslim guy who did so was.

I'm sure in all of these cases you could do any amount of stretching to excuse why the individual facts of this particular case just don't really merit charges of terrorism. Yet somehow those excuses get hauled out exclusively in the service of white, christian, far-right domestic terrorists, while being nowhere to be found in the case of black muslim domestic terrorists.

Ah well, I guess it's just racism.

[Nique]

Sorry to ask this, but are Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh as really horrible as the interwebs say about them, the most I hear about them is from Jon Stewart and thats just clips and what not

It's slightly off topic, but these items illustrate a valid point which is that Rush Limbaugh is a tremendous toolbox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micheal_J_Fox#2006_political_advertisement_controv ersy).

Woefully misinformed & not just a little bigoted;;

-"Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society."
-(On Global Warming) ""...is just a bunch of scientists organized around a political proposition. You can't have consensus in science ... they think consensus is the way to sell it because, 'Oh, but all these wonderful people agree.'"

Oh and he also encouraged people to rig the election. So to answer your question, 'yes'.

[Bob The Mercenary]

Just heard that the Holocaust museum shooter wanted to dissolve Israel, wanted to bomb the Weekly Standard, thinks Bush was behind 9/11, and he hates Fox News.

For example, he unleashed his hatred of both Presidents Bush and other “neo-conservatives” in online essays. As even some “progressives” such as the influential Adbusters magazine publicly admit, “neoconservative” is often used as a derogatory code word for “Jews”. As well, even a cursory glance at “white supremacist” writings reveals a hatred of, say, big corporations that is virtually indistinguishable from that of anti-globalization activists.

James von Brunn’s advocacy of 9/11 conspiracy theories also gives him an additional commonality with individuals on the far-left.

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-722-Conservative-Politics-Examiner~y2009m6d10-Holocaust-Museum-shooter-von-Brunn-a-911-truther-who-hated-neocons-Bush-McCain

This guy wasn't a right-wing nut. He was a nut. Period.

[Edit] And he hates Christianity. (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/estack_12_13_06/heidi_cullen_sliced_and_diced_by_logic.guest.html. html)

[Edit] And here's the full text (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/estack_12_13_06/heidi_cullen_sliced_and_diced_by_logic.guest.html. html) from the Rush quote about global warming that Nique posted, just for reference.

[Odjn]

Just heard that the Holocaust museum shooter wanted to dissolve Israel, wanted to bomb the Weekly Standard, thinks Bush was behind 9/11, and he hates Fox News.



http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-722-Conservative-Politics-Examiner~y2009m6d10-Holocaust-Museum-shooter-von-Brunn-a-911-truther-who-hated-neocons-Bush-McCain

This guy wasn't a right-wing nut. He was a nut. Period.

[Edit] And he hates Christianity. (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/estack_12_13_06/heidi_cullen_sliced_and_diced_by_logic.guest.html. html)

[Edit] And here's the full text (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/estack_12_13_06/heidi_cullen_sliced_and_diced_by_logic.guest.html. html) from the Rush quote about global warming that Nique posted, just for reference.

A nut who was also a Nazi. That's literally about as far right as you can get without exploding in hate.

[Kurosen]

This guy wasn't a right-wing nut. He was a nut. Period.
That is some very wishful thinking. His problems with Bush and Limbaugh is that they were not right-wing enough.

And here's the full text (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/estack_12_13_06/heidi_cullen_sliced_and_diced_by_logic.guest.html. html) from the Rush quote about global warming that Nique posted, just for reference.
Quick derail to dismantle anti-global warming thought.

It doesn't matter who is right and who is wrong. Ultimately, there are two Worst Case Scenarios.

1. global warming is true and we do nothing and civilization ends.

2. global warming is not true and we waste a lot of time and energy to invent all kinds of technology and industries that aren't needed to save our lives, but have plenty of uses anyway.

Which do you want to be? The generation that's remembered forever as the folks who made some trivial sacrifices just in case it would save civilization, or the generation that isn't remembered because humanity went extinct while we had petty arguments about just how fast the sky was falling?

The only reason there's a debate at all is that the solutions for global warming are financially inconvenient to people with a great deal of money and influence. It is morally repugnant to argue that global warming is a hoax or just wrong because the stakes are so high -- it represents the end of all human life forever.

[Marc v4.0]

[Edit] And here's the full text (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/estack_12_13_06/heidi_cullen_sliced_and_diced_by_logic.guest.html. html) from the Rush quote about global warming that Nique posted, just for reference.


I'm just going to have to hop on the offtopic bandwagon and point out how

As I adeptly and accurately pointed out on this program, that's typical of the left and the global warming movement. If you don't agree with them, you don't count and you have to shut up.

is just so god damned funny when you think about real right-wingers like Rush and how they believe

If you don't agree with them, you don't count and you have to shut up

and "You can't have consensus in science" is about the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard anyone say about anything.

[Archbio]

And he hates Christianity.

That's pretty emblematic with the problem with your demonstration that the guy isn't a right-wing nut, Bob. It's just soaked in the suggestion of sweeping, absolute claims. "Right-wingers" are Christians, "left-wingers" are not. Someone who hates Christianity has "something in common with individuals in the far left", therefore, he's not on the far right.

It is morally repugnant to argue that global warming is a hoax or just wrong because the stakes are so high -- it represents the end of all human life forever.

Wouldn't it be more likely that it represents the end of our civilization forever?

That's just a quibble, though, it doesn't really alter the main point: still pretty high stakes!

[Fifthfiend]

Wouldn't it be more likely that it represents the end of our civilization forever?

It could go either way, depending on how bad we fuck things up!

[BitVyper]

It doesn't matter who is right and who is wrong. Ultimately, there are two Worst Case Scenarios.

1. global warming is true and we do nothing and civilization ends.

2. global warming is not true and we waste a lot of time and energy to invent all kinds of technology and industries that aren't needed to save our lives, but have plenty of uses anyway.

That's pretty much just the global warming version of Pascal's Wager. Acting as if something is true just to be on the safe side is best in scenarios that can be resolved quickly. When it affects peoples' entire lives, and every politician is using it to try and push a political agenda, then no; I'll go with the side I actually think is true. Even if the stakes are high. This isn't "the world will blow up tomorrow if we don't do something," it's a situation that can be stretched out into infinity.

The idea of global warming being caused by humans touches too many aspects of our lives for us to design policy based on playing-it-safe. I don't really care about the big-business side of things; I'm in favour of energy efficiency and less dependency on oil anyway. However the little things that are getting pulled here and there, justified because it's just plain wrong to oppose anything that "fights" [insert environmental problem] are getting to be a bigger and bigger issue.

Also this mentality:

It is morally repugnant to argue that global warming is a hoax or just wrong because the stakes are so high -- it represents the end of all human life forever.

Is why I pretty much don't even bother to discuss global warming directly anymore. Once you hit the point where you're calling the opposition "morally repugnant" because they don't believe in something that has nothing to do with morals, we've pretty much lost all possibility for constructive discussion. This is a bit sad, because there's people out there I'd LIKE to talk to about the matter because discussion is how I learn, but I can't stomach this kind of mentality.

[Kurosen]

Sorry, I'd rather be paranoid and wrong than "ho-hum" and dead.

[BitVyper]

Sorry, I'd rather be paranoid and wrong than "ho-hum" and dead.

Then be paranoid and right/wrong. I won't pass moral judgement on you for it.

[Kurosen]

Let me rephrase.

In cases of the very real possibility of the death of humankind, I'd rather be paranoid that it could happen and take actions to ensure that it does not even if it turns out this paranoia was ultimately unfounded.

I'm not sure why anti-global warming people disagree. If global warming is true and we "fix" it, then that's good for them. If global warming is false and we went through the effort of "fixing" it for nothing, they get to be smug assholes about it forever. That's also good for them. It's win-win!

[The Wizard Who Did It]

I'm not sure why anti-global warming people disagree. If global warming is true and we "fix" it, then that's good for them. If global warming is false and we went through the effort of "fixing" it for nothing, they get to be smug assholes about it forever. That's also good for them. It's win-win!
The thing is that they're mostly worried about the massive amounts of time, energy, and resources that would need to be put forward to make the necessary changes.

The often neglected part is that these changes should be made anyway, even if there isn't a significant crisis. It's just that making these changes has some amount of risk and has no immediate profit gains, so none of the big businesses want to spring for it. Because obviously short-term profits (short-term is now defined as like in the next 1~10 years) is more important than the advancement of mankind or something.

[Aerozord]

For the record, Nazis aren't christian, thats a common misconception. During the war it was just a lower priority target. ie They wouldn't kill you just for being a christian. Though if a priest explained how genocide was a sin he'd find his church on fire assuming he lived long enough to find out.

That's pretty much just the global warming version of Pascal's Wager. Acting as if something is true just to be on the safe side is best in scenarios that can be resolved quickly. When it affects peoples' entire lives, and every politician is using it to try and push a political agenda, then no; I'll go with the side I actually think is true. Even if the stakes are high. This isn't "the world will blow up tomorrow if we don't do something," it's a situation that can be stretched out into infinity.


Its also a logical falacy to think 'its bad so it isn't happening'. In the literal sense global warming is fact. The average tempurature of the planet has gone up. The planet Earth (globe) is experiencing higher tempuratures (warming).

In any case I agree we should care either way but for a different reason. Polution is bad, I dont care if it heats up the planet or not there are plenty of other reasons to want to get rid of it. People were trying to reduce smog decades before the concept of global warming existed. They are just more vocal because instead of quality of life lowering they now realize it could shift climates to the point point food production drops 75% in a hundred years.

In other words if they got 100% factual scientific proof that shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that CO2 does not now, nor will it ever cause any type of tempurature shift. I'd still say we should work to stop it, because there are other reasons polution is bad

[Kurosen]

entire post
Which is why I toss around phrases like "morally repugnant." It's a handful of institutions putting the fate of every living person in jeopardy for the sake of making themselves slightly more money than they would if they did the right thing.

[Grognor]

Forgive me for talking about the original topic, but it's incidents like these that make me wonder why I'm still a philanthropist. Despite my entire life's story and despite everyone else's entire life story, I cling to my own misguided ideals. Here I am you are me; aren't we the same?

[GodHand Prime]

Let me rephrase.

In cases of the very real possibility of the death of humankind, I'd rather be paranoid that it could happen and take actions to ensure that it does not even if it turns out this paranoia was ultimately unfounded.

I'm not sure why anti-global warming people disagree. If global warming is true and we "fix" it, then that's good for them. If global warming is false and we went through the effort of "fixing" it for nothing, they get to be smug assholes about it forever. That's also good for them. It's win-win!

Except how this is very, very much not the case.

What about the morality of telling underdeveloped nations that they can't use their ample natural resources? The global warming movement is pretty much guaranteeing that no new competition from abroad will emerge for any big industry, unless they can feasibly do so using technologies that are still decades (at least) away from being viable, let alone affordable. It also prevents the construction or powering of hospitals. That's right - global warming activism denies health care to underdeveloped countries.

What about the morality of causing a complete shutdown of our way of life? Suddenly eschewing all currently viable power sources in favor of experimental power sources that one day, decades down the road, might be able to power the necessary devices for our world to work as it is now would have a few consequences, I think.

What about the morality of spending billions of dollars to fix a problem we don't have? Our economy is a mess right now, and flagrant, whimsical government spending is making it worse. The US government is spending an absurd amount of money on global warming activism. That's money that could've been not borrowed and not spent, lessening the strain on US credit which will cause economic catastrophe and huge amounts of suffering in the global economic fallout.

What about the morality of, well, lying? The polar ice caps have been growing again for two years, while the activists shriek about how they're shrinking. (See the satellite photos from the University of Illinois web site for documentation.) The best meteorological experts in the world - those at the University of Oklahoma - are never asked for their opinion, because it is known that they don't support the hoax. All in all, the 'science' supporting man-made global warming is shoddy and weak. It has been repeatedly demonstrated false The problem is that it is no longer science. It is religious dogma that is politically useful to both sides.

But then, the only costs are the world economy, our way of life, the lives of the poor, our integrity, and the principles of science. A small price to pay for the power rush of believing mankind capable of ruining the world, and the self-importance of believing you can fix it.

Yeah, it's awful of those global warming naysayers to try to prevent people from causing unnecessary mayhem and death.

EDIT:"In the literal sense global warming is fact. The average tempurature of the planet has gone up. The planet Earth (globe) is experiencing higher tempuratures (warming)." This is truly a fact. As opposed to an opinion. The difference between the two is that a fact is falsifiable, and opinion is not. In this case, the fact is false. The warming trend is over. Global climate has been cooling for a while now. Global warming activists don't recognize it, because their model suggests that cooling is only possible in the event of catastrophe, and catastrophe isn't here.

[Kurosen]

Those are some great strawmen.

[GodHand Prime]

Those are some great strawmen.

Assuming you're talking about my post, I'd like to suggest that "straw man" doesn't mean what you think it means. You asserted that believing in and acting on global warming has no cost. I pointed out some costs.

EDIT: Sorry, you did mention "costs." I meant to say that you asserted that believing in and acting on global warming has no drawbacks, and was in every way a preferable thing to the alternative.

[The Wizard Who Did It]

What about the morality of telling underdeveloped nations that they can't use their ample natural resources? The global warming movement is pretty much guaranteeing that no new competition from abroad will emerge for any big industry, unless they can feasibly do so using technologies that are still decades (at least) away from being viable, let alone affordable. It also prevents the construction or powering of hospitals. That's right - global warming activism denies health care to underdeveloped countries.
Right, because it's impossible for more developed countries to construct generators for under developed countries to power their hospitals and shit.

Oh right, I forgot. The best economic and social systems are ones where everyone always looks out for themselves, as is evidenced by the possible world-shattering issues being supported by these systems.

That said, you're ignoring that under developed countries don't really have a significant foothold in the market using current economic policy anyway.
What about the morality of causing a complete shutdown of our way of life? Suddenly eschewing all currently viable power sources in favor of experimental power sources that one day, decades down the road, might be able to power the necessary devices for our world to work as it is now would have a few consequences, I think.
That would be a problem, if there wasn't already evidence that many of these power sources work perfectly fine. It's just that big businesses with a vested interest in not developing power sources (those related to fuel, for example) have actively worked to make sure that these systems do not get off the ground.
What about the morality of spending billions of dollars to fix a problem we don't have?
The thing is that an inefficient use of resources is a problem we have whether we have a global warming problem or not. So updating and improving our technology towards a more green path is a good solution even if global warming doesn't exist (to the degree in question). If it does exist, then we're just getting two birds with one stone.
What about the morality of, well, lying?
Well when discussing this policy, I'd argue that any lying being done would be a white lie. Sure, some of the claims made are complete bullshit. However, if it scares people into supporting a more efficient and effective infrastructure, I can't in good heart say that it's an inherently bad thing.
But then, the only costs are the world economy, our way of life, the lives of the poor, our integrity, and the principles of science. A small price to pay for the power rush of believing mankind capable of ruining the world, and the self-importance of believing you can fix it.
Or you can just say "we should probably make a few changes to reduce the amount of pollution we throw around." I can't see how increasing the quality of life for people in general by making some sacrifices in the short term is a bad thing.

[Fifthfiend]

What about the morality of, well, lying?

Yeah, NASA is totally (http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/sea_ice_nsidc.html) lying.

Global warming is a conspiracy, maaaaaaaaaaaan, all cooked up by ?????????????????????? for the benefit of ??????????????????????? because ????????????????????? gets them ????????????????????????????

*SMOKES WEED*

[Kurosen]

I meant to say that you asserted that believing in and acting on global warming has no drawbacks, and was in every way a preferable thing to the alternative.
The costs are trivial. Your versions of them are grossly inflated (i.e. misrepresentations) to make your points. Straw man. Thanks for playing.

What I love about the scientific conspiracy angle is that it depends upon complete ignorance of the scientific process.

Scientists do not sit around all day patting each other on the back. It's a cut throat system where everyone is constantly seeking to prove the prevailing wisdom wrong. You don't get grant money, fame, and prestige by proving that Einstein was right. You get it by proving that he was wrong and that you are right.

Yes, sometimes scientists lie or fudge their results -- intentionally or unintentionally -- this is basic human nature and cannot be avoided...which is why there is such an incredible emphasis on repeatable results. It's not a perfect system, but it weeds out falsehoods better than anything else we've invented thus far. For global warming to be a "hoax" would require the willing participation of hundreds (thousands?) of ambitious men and women to put aside their careers and egos to...uh...annoy some oil companies I guess.

[Aerozord]

Except how this is very, very much not the case.

What about the morality of telling underdeveloped nations that they can't use their ample natural resources? The global warming movement is pretty much guaranteeing that no new competition from abroad will emerge for any big industry, unless they can feasibly do so using technologies that are still decades (at least) away from being viable, let alone affordable. It also prevents the construction or powering of hospitals. That's right - global warming activism denies health care to underdeveloped countries.

Allow me to share a story one of my teachers once shared with me.

Once upon a time a company was test marketing an electic car. He got to lease this vechile and try it. He loved it, it was vastly better then his gas powered one. So much so he had every intention of keeping it. Then an oil company bought out the people that made it, discontinued the project, and forced him to return the car.

Alternatives have existed for over a decade. The technology exists, now. It just isn't implimented. We. Dont. Need. Oil.

[GodHand Prime]

Right, because it's impossible for more developed countries to construct generators for under developed countries to power their hospitals and shit.

Oh right, I forgot. The best economic and social systems are ones where everyone always looks out for themselves, as is evidenced by the possible world-shattering issues being supported by these systems.

That said, you're ignoring that under developed countries don't really have a significant foothold in the market using current economic policy anyway.

Parts and fuel for generators have to come from somewhere, man. And they're not cheap. Under current environmental regulation, the best available to small hospitals is solar panels, which are still very expensive. Two solar panels provide enough power to run a light bulb to work by, or a refrigerator to store medicine in, but not both at once. Forget about actual modern equipment.

With access to their fossil fuels, these countries could sell the surplus to buy generators that run on a fuel they can afford. They don't have this access, and so they can't.

That would be a problem, if there wasn't already evidence that many of these power sources work perfectly fine. It's just that big businesses with a vested interest in not developing power sources (those related to fuel, for example) have actively worked to make sure that these systems do not get off the ground.

Yeah, no. There's been work going on for many years to try and find alternative power sources, but no one can come up with a way to make them sustainable. The scientists are still working on a way to make things like wind and solar power viable on a large scale, but they're too costly and inefficient.

The thing is that an inefficient use of resources is a problem we have whether we have a global warming problem or not. So updating and improving our technology towards a more green path is a good solution even if global warming doesn't exist (to the degree in question). If it does exist, then we're just getting two birds with one stone.

If it's an energy efficiency issue, let's make it an energy efficiency issue. I'm cool with that. I'm all for developing more energy sources. My issue is with global warming, and all the hysteria and scientific dishonesty and real human cost that goes along with it.

Well when discussing this policy, I'd argue that any lying being done would be a white lie. Sure, some of the claims made are complete bullshit. However, if it scares people into supporting a more efficient and effective infrastructure, I can't in good heart say that it's an inherently bad thing.

It's people like you who kill science, and I think you should have your computer taken away for this.

Or you can just say "we should probably make a few changes to reduce the amount of pollution we throw around." I can't see how increasing the quality of life for people in general by making some sacrifices in the short term is a bad thing.

They've got to be informed sacrifices made willingly. The global warming scare interferes with that. Advances in reducing actual environmentally harmful emissions would be great. But CO2 is an incredibly environmentally beneficial gas, and the absurd lengths we're going to in order to curtail its emission are not only costly, but harmful.

[Fifthfiend]

No seriously get back to the part where every climate scientist in the world is lying and only ___________________ will tell us the truth, man.

[Kurosen]

But CO2 is an incredibly environmentally beneficial gas, and the absurd lengths we're going to in order to curtail its emission are not only costly, but harmful.
We're pumping over 400 years' worth of carbon into the atmosphere every year and it's increasing every year.

I mean, a liter of water every day is incredibly beneficial to you, but 400 liters per day seems like a bit of a strain.

[GodHand Prime]

The costs are trivial. Your versions of them are grossly inflated (i.e. misrepresentations) to make your points. Straw man. Thanks for playing.

What I love about the scientific conspiracy angle is that it depends upon complete ignorance of the scientific process.

Scientists do not sit around all day patting each other on the back. It's a cut throat system where everyone is constantly seeking to prove the prevailing wisdom wrong. You don't get grant money, fame, and prestige by proving that Einstein was right. You get it by proving that he was wrong and that you are right.

Yes, sometimes scientists lie or fudge their results -- intentionally or unintentionally -- this is basic human nature and cannot be avoided...which is why there is such an incredible emphasis on repeatable results. It's not a perfect system, but it weeds out falsehoods better than anything else we've invented thus far. For global warming to be a "hoax" would require the willing participation of hundreds (thousands?) of ambitious men and women to put aside their careers and egos to...uh...annoy some oil companies I guess.

Except that this interpretation of the scientific progress assumes that everyone is playing by the rules. Let's go over some of the basic reasons why they don't.

1) Scientists are people.
2) People want money.
3) Scientists largely get money from grants.
4) Grants are controlled by politicians.
5) Politicians decide who to give grants to based on who is saying what they want to hear.

Then there's the basic underlying fact that humans want to think they're more powerful than they are.

[Fifthfiend]

Except that this interpretation of the scientific progress assumes that everyone is playing by the rules. Let's go over some of the basic reasons why they don't.

1) Scientists are people.
2) People want money.
3) Scientists largely get money from grants.
4) Grants are controlled by politicians.
5) Politicians decide who to give grants to based on who is saying what they want to hear.

Then there's the basic underlying fact that humans want to think they're more powerful than they are.

Holy fuck I was hoping for this post.

God yes thank you for sharing your view that scientists are financially biased which is why they put forward views which run contrary to the preferences of the wealthiest and most politically powerful fucking interests in the world.

Now I can completely not take you seriously at all, this is fantastic.

[GodHand Prime]

No seriously get back to the part where every climate scientist in the world is lying and only ___________________ will tell us the truth, man.

Not every climate scientist. Every climate scientist that the news and politicians point to. As I pointed out, the best experts in the world are among those not invited to participate.

We're pumping over 400 years' worth of carbon into the atmosphere every year and it's increasing every year.

I mean, a liter of water every day is incredibly beneficial to you, but 400 liters per day seems like a bit of a strain.

Compare this to what the ocean emits. Or a volcano.

The amount of CO2 humanity puts into the air is inconsequential.

[GodHand Prime]

Holy fuck I was hoping for this post.

God yes thank you for sharing your view that scientists are financially biased which is why they are all putting forward views which run contrary to the preferences of the wealthiest and most politically powerful fucking interests in the world.

Now I can completely not take you seriously at all, this is fantastic.

Yeah, because wealthy people have no interest in stifling overseas competition at all.

EDIT: It's simple economics. If you punish everybody in the business, you end up seriously helping the biggest players in the business, because they can afford to take the hit, and they'd really love to take the marketshare from the guys who can't.

[Fifthfiend]

Yeah, because wealthy people have no interest in stifling overseas competition at all.

Yeah nice try but you're arguing from Trollsville in the great state of Fantasyland, street address 323 I Have No Clue What I'm Talking About Lane. The only serious question here whether your apparent belief that there has not been enormously more money and political power put into denying the existence of global warming than has ever been put into arguing for it it is only completely ignorant or whether it's also outright dishonest.

[GodHand Prime]

Yeah nice try but you're arguing from Trollsville in the great state of Fantasyland, street address 323 I Have No Clue What I'm Talking About Lane. The only serious question here whether your apparent belief that there has not been enormously more money and political power put into denying the existence of global warming than has ever been put into arguing for it it is only completely ignorant or whether it's also outright dishonest.

Yeah, forget that I have two relevant degrees. I disagree with your sensationalized, completely misinformed opinion, so I clearly have no idea what I'm talking about.

[Aerozord]

Compare this to what the ocean emits. Or a volcano.

The amount of CO2 humanity puts into the air is inconsequential.

what? I mean seriously, what are you talking about. Humans produce more CO2 then every other source combined, including the other animals on the planet. Plus deforesting gets rid of the stuff that gets rid of it

[GodHand Prime]

what? I mean seriously, what are you talking about. Humans produce more CO2 then every other source combined, including the other animals on the planet. Plus deforesting gets rid of the stuff that gets rid of it

Completely and utterly false. The ocean governs most of the natural CO2 cycle, and dwarfs everything humans do.

EDIT: I can see where you'd get that idea, as we're constantly bombarded by sensational stories about the massive impact of human CO2 emissions, but it just ain't so.

[Azisien]

Yeah, forget that I have two relevant degrees. I disagree with your sensationalized, completely misinformed opinion, so I clearly have no idea what I'm talking about.

So what?

I have a relevant degree. All my professors probably had bigger relevant degrees than you. For all your high education, you sure do not post citations or actual statistics.

Human CO2 output is inconsequential? I think during your degree you should have studied equilibrium. Yes, the ocean's output is larger than human output (by 10-15 fold or so). However, the ocean is also packed with cyanobacteria constantly pumping out oxygen to roughly equilibrate.

Although comparable to the entire globe human output is still small, not only is it continually growing (and just imagine if every country in the world was industrialized like America is as per Godhand's fantasy world of haze and death smog), but we do not have any oxygen equilibrating process to match our output. While small, we tip the scale, and we tip it fast.

That and we're slaughtering the ocean's cyanobacteria, chopping down our rainforests, and just generally killing things, which destroys further oxygen production. I guess on the plus side if we eat ALL the fish, they won't be doing pesky things like breathing anymore.

EDIT: And the point is that the change is also occurring fast. While I'm not convinced humanity would be utterly destroyed, I don't think any of us can really know how dark the tunnel gets. The planet and its inhabitants requires evolutionary time scales to adapt to planetary-scale changes.

Also, volcanoes? Yeah I'll need to see proof of that. Eruptions have been monitored for decades with no noticeable increase in CO2, they'd be inconsequential to human output. The biggest, most fantastic volcanoes ever in the history of the world can affect climate, sure, but through processes other than just CO2.

[Fifthfiend]

Yeah, forget that I have two relevant degrees. I disagree with your sensationalized, completely misinformed opinion, so I clearly have no idea what I'm talking about.

Ha ha ha ha ha, the claim of Internet Expertness is made even better due to being completely irrelevant to the point being made.

Oh gosh you have a degree I guess that means oil and energy companies haven't spent shitloads of money over the course of decades on lobbying and PR efforts to oppose action on global warming. All those Exxon-funded think tanks and shit? Imaginary!

You are seriously the funnest troll we have had in ages, I strongly encourage you to keep digging yourself deeper.

...But hey maybe you're right there are loads of massively powerful and wealthy interests with an incentive to push for action on global warming, which explains why we have done pretty much jack shit about global warming for decades. Cause we all know how when massively powerful and wealthy interests want something to happen, what you can absolutely count on is it not being done!

I mean I guess it's awesome that the MASSIVE conspiracy to make people believe in global warming has succeeded in like... getting some people to listen to Al Gore do a Powerpoint presentation. The bastards!

[Aerozord]

Completely and utterly false. The ocean governs most of the natural CO2 cycle, and dwarfs everything humans do.


you seem to be confusing air born CO2 with dissolved CO2. Algea can pump out all the CO2 it wants and it wont affect climate.

[Mirai Gen]

EDIT: I can see where you'd get that idea, as we're constantly bombarded by sensational stories about the massive impact of human CO2 emissions, but it just ain't so.
I have a hard time believing that the oil companies who are telling you that we're not actually killing our planet are fundamentally less corrupted and less likely to spread propaganda than scientists.

[GodHand Prime]

So what?

I have a relevant degree. All my professors probably had bigger relevant degrees than you.

I was responding to a claim that I had no idea what I was talking about. I have degrees. Fifthfiend has, apparently, the ability to ridicule people on the Internet. One is a relevant commodity. The other is not.

For all your high education, you sure do not post citations or actual statistics.

I'm not on the same computer I had when I was studying. Even if I had the relevant subscriptions still, I don't have the URLs handy. Besides, I'm not writing a research paper. I'm discussing the topic on the Internet with a crowd biased enough to ignore any link I presented and call it lies. This ain't my first rodeo. Why should I go to more effort than anyone else is for the joy of being ignored?

Human CO2 output is inconsequential? I think during your degree you should have studied equilibrium. Yes, the ocean's output is larger than human output (by 10-15 fold or so). However, the ocean is also packed with cyanobacteria constantly pumping out oxygen to roughly equilibrate.

Although comparable to the entire globe human output is still small, not only is it continually growing (and just imagine if every country in the world was industrialized like America is as per Godhand's fantasy world of haze and death smog), but we do not have any oxygen equilibrating process to match our output. While small, we tip the scale, and we tip it fast.

That and we're slaughtering the ocean's cyanobacteria, chopping down our rainforests, and just generally killing things, which destroys further oxygen production. I guess on the plus side if we eat ALL the fish, they won't be doing pesky things like breathing anymore.

This is a bit misleading. Oxygen in no way balances out CO2. There is no dichotomy there. The questions are, whether or not CO2 is a driver in climate change (it has never been shown to be so), whether mankind's emissions of CO2 are causing significant harm (in light of the previous answer, clearly not), and whether actions to counteract the release of CO2 have negative consequences (very much so).

Also, you seem to have missed the point where I'm all for energy efficiency and reducing legitimate pollutants.

EDIT: And the point is that the change is also occurring fast. While I'm not convinced humanity would be utterly destroyed, I don't think any of us can really know how dark the tunnel gets. The planet and its inhabitants requires evolutionary time scales to adapt to planetary-scale changes.

As an illustration of just how fast the change is happening, show me shots of the polar ice caps every year, from, say, 2005 onward. Go on. The University of Illinois has them available on their site.

Also, volcanoes? Yeah I'll need to see proof of that. Eruptions have been monitored for decades with no noticeable increase in CO2, they'd be inconsequential to human output. The biggest, most fantastic volcanoes ever in the history of the world can affect climate, sure, but through processes other than just CO2.

You mean, climate change involves many factors, not just CO2? Holy crap! Do you realize what this means? It's almost like there's some sort of natural process going on!

you seem to be confusing air born CO2 with dissolved CO2. Algea can pump out all the CO2 it wants and it wont affect climate.

Nope. I mean released into the atmosphere. The ocean releases CO2 into the atmosphere in absurd quantities, when it's in emission cycle. Like now.

EDIT: I have a hard time believing that the oil companies who are telling you that we're not actually killing our planet are fundamentally less corrupted and less likely to spread propaganda than scientists.

See, this is what I'm talking about with the subversion of science. Anyone who is protesting the absurdly weak science put forth by the alarmists is automatically a tool of the Great Satan. The government hires scientists to write a report about man-made global warming, the majority of the scientists submit evidence that there's no such things, the government edits their reports to say the exact opposite, said scientists protest their names being associated with this fiction, the government tells them to go screw themselves... and then Global Warming is the Pure Truth, and disagreeing with it is Vile Evil Lies Perpetuated For Rule of a Dead World.

[Fifthfiend]

a crowd biased enough to ignore any link I presented

I guess we'd know whether that's true if you'd ever bothered presenting any.http://i606.photobucket.com/albums/tt148/fifthfiend/emoticons/smug.gif

I have degrees.

It's too bad none of them were from a program good enough to teach you what fallacies are.http://i606.photobucket.com/albums/tt148/fifthfiend/emoticons/smug.gif

See, this is what I'm talking about with the subversion of science. Anyone who is protesting the absurdly weak science put forth by the alarmists is automatically a tool of the Great Satan. The government hires scientists to write a report about man-made global warming, the majority of the scientists submit evidence that there's no such things, the government edits their reports to say the exact opposite, said scientists protest their names being associated with this fiction, the government tells them to go screw themselves... and then Global Warming is the Pure Truth, and disagreeing with it is Vile Evil Lies Perpetuated For Rule of a Dead World.

Oh wow you are seriously perfect.

You... you complete me.

[GodHand Prime]

I guess we'd know whether that's true if you'd ever bothered presenting any.http://i606.photobucket.com/albums/tt148/fifthfiend/emoticons/smug.gif

Because there's so very many links being provided in this discussion. I'm the only one not providing evidence.


It's too bad none of them were from a program good enough to teach you what fallacies are.http://i606.photobucket.com/albums/tt148/fifthfiend/emoticons/smug.gif

I used my education to refute the argument that I was ignorant, and no other. No fallacy applies. Your move, troll.

[Mirai Gen]

Anyone who is protesting the absurdly weak science put forth by the alarmists is automatically a tool of the Great Satan.
I don't think you quite understand just how crazy it sounds to call the science backing global warming 'absurdly weak,' especially with absolutely no sources to back them up.
Because there's so very many links being provided in this discussion. I'm the only one not providing evidence.
So two wrongs make a right? I mean in a debate if you're trying to win you can't just keep saying 'you go first.'

[GodHand Prime]

I don't think you quite understand just how crazy it sounds to call the science backing global warming 'absurdly weak,' especially with absolutely no sources to back them up.

So two wrongs make a right? I mean in a debate if you're trying to win you can't just keep saying 'you go first.'

I don't think you realize how that's the only thing keeping us even. You're not exactly a fountain of links yourself.

I wrote my research papers years ago. Now I'm discussing politics with people on an obscure Internet forum. Forgive me if I'm not prepared to do the same amount of work now as then.

[Kurosen]

I like the part where investing in processes and technologies that we ought to invest in anyway is a Bad Idea that will lead to Ultimate Financial Ruin because, somehow, doing this will never create jobs and whole new industries.

[BitVyper]

Okay, to be a bit more thorough this time;

In cases of the very real possibility of the death of humankind

Stop right here. There's a real possibility in the sense that it is physically possible that global warming could kill humankind. That doesn't mean it's a likely scenario. Even in the worst worst case "there's a C'tan in our sun and the ozone was protecting us from him" scenarios, it's pretty likely that we'd pull through. Taking the possibility that we are causing global warming and going from that to "the very real possibility" that it will kill us all is already one 'if' too many. Not to mention you have to ramp up the scale of global warming just to get to that point.

Assuming that global warming is being caused by us and is going to get worse, the worst case scenarios that are actually likely and not just rampant paranoia are certainly not pleasant, but they aren't apocalyptic either.

So yeah, I don't think that just because the sky might be falling if this and that are also true, that we should create paranoia on a scale where we're able to justify doing whatever we want even when it impacts peoples' lives on a personal scale. In fact, I'm against acting out of paranoia in general. People tend to do stupid shit that accomplishes absolutely nothing when they're paranoid. Specifically avoiding other possibilities out of paranoia (like labelling people who want to discuss the possibility that you're wrong as morally repugnant) breeds ignorance. Ignorance tends to solve very little save overpopulation.

Now add to the stupid policies getting pushed through politicians who are elected by sole virtue of their support for "green" policies. I don't know what it's like in the US, but I've certainly seen it happening here

If your plan involved thinking about global warming rationally and paying attention to the studies and views that you don't like, I would have less of a problem with your stance. Your plan is pretty much specifically that paranoia should be promoted and that doing anything to diffuse this paranoia is wrong in the moral sense. That's not a good plan.

Also if you believe global warming to be a big deal, then you should be very concerned with whether or not humans are causing it, because if we aren't, then we're busy solving a bunch of problems that won't actually help us if the worst case scenario occurs. This planet has had far worse things than global warming happen to it, and they will likely happen again. The sky will probably always be falling just over the horizon.

It is morally repugnant to argue that global warming is a hoax

Going back to this for a moment, lets not lump all the people who don't agree with your view into one group. There's a good chunk of people who think it's happening, and just believe that we aren't the cause. They have pretty good reasoning too, and they're worth listening to if you think global warming is going to lead to the extinction of the human species. It's a good thing to consider, because we have a pretty long history of being very ego-centric and crafting apocalypse stories that centre on us.

Not that that's even my view. I don't dare mention my views here because lord knows it would make me a bad person.

[Kurosen]

you should be very concerned with whether or not humans are causing it, because if we aren't, then we're busy solving a bunch of problems that won't actually help us
The alternative is to faff around uselessly and hope everything works out okay.

Call me crazy, but that's a terrible plan.

[GodHand Prime]

I like the part where investing in processes and technologies that we ought to invest in anyway is a Bad Idea that will lead to Ultimate Financial Ruin because, somehow, doing this will never create jobs and whole new industries.

Oh, it already has. Global warming activism is Big Business. It's just that throwing money at a problem that isn't there isn't really the best use of it. Especially when it is in our best interest to spend as little as possible.

EDIT:The alternative is to faff around uselessly and hope everything works out okay.

Call me crazy, but that's a terrible plan.

It's pretty sound when the people involved already know the outcome. They just pretend, because there's tons of money being thrown around, and big fancy conferences in cities where prostitution is legal. (Copenhagen's prostitution revenues went through the roof during the last big activism summit, BTW. Just thought you should know where all those tax dollars are going. FOREIGN WHORES.)

[Fifthfiend]

Because there's so very many links being provided in this discussion. I'm the only one not providing evidence.

Yeah, NASA is totally (http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/sea_ice_nsidc.html) lying.

Hey look at that, it's one more link than you've put up. How 'bout that.

I used my education to refute the argument that I was ignorant, and no other. No fallacy applies.

You should try getting an education that refutes your poor reading comprehension.http://i606.photobucket.com/albums/tt148/fifthfiend/emoticons/smug.gif

Your move, troll.

OH SHIT THE TROLL CALLED ME A TROLL

http://i606.photobucket.com/albums/tt148/fifthfiend/emoticons/ohdear.gif

[Kurosen]

"Scientists are creating a scare to get grant money."

If they wanted more money they would say "hey we aren't sure, we need to study this more because of potential dangers." That is not what the National Academies of 11 countries that signed the G-8 joint statement (http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensus.htm#Joint_I) are saying. They are saying we know the dangers, it's time to take action. They are not stalling for more funding.

Featuring more refutations for Rush's your other talking points (http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/funding.html).

[Mirai Gen]

Especially when it is in our best interest to spend as little as possible.
Why, exactly? Isn't that exactly the kind of thought process that put us into an economic slump that's ten times worse than if the media never caught onto it?

They just pretend, because there's tons of money being thrown around, and big fancy conferences in cities where prostitution is legal. (Copenhagen's prostitution revenues went through the roof during the last big activism summit, BTW. Just thought you should know where all those tax dollars are going. FOREIGN WHORES.)
Strawmen right to Ad hominem?

Dude what the hell kind of degree did you get cause it sure as hell wasn't in Debate or English.

[Fifthfiend]

FOREIGN WHORES! http://i606.photobucket.com/albums/tt148/fifthfiend/emoticons/th_doom.gif

[Grognor]

Now, I won't argue on either side here, though I very well could, but I will point out the disdain I have for the lack of respect in this argument. Sure, it's far more than it is elsewhere on the internet, but it's still disgusting how ad hominem keeps making its way into this debate. I'm most surprised at whom the greatest disrespect is coming from. No position is illegitimate if it can be held and argued, so (to no one specific) stop treating your opponent as dead wrong.

You know, I used to wonder why debate was so structured and inflexible. Eventually I figured it out.

[GodHand Prime]

"Scientists are creating a scare to get grant money."



Featuring more refutations for Rush's your other talking points (http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/funding.html).

And which courses of action are we going to take? Who is going to determine that? You think there might be some money left over for research? Maybe?

Why, exactly? Isn't that exactly the kind of thought process that put us into an economic slump that's ten times worse than if the media never caught onto it?

Our current rate of spending is forcing the world credit institutions to examine the prospect of lowering the US credit rating. The economic consequences would be astounding.

Strawmen right to Ad hominem?

Dude what the hell kind of degree did you get cause it sure as hell wasn't in Debate or English.

Just an interesting aside. I'll try to find the link to this article, as well as the others I'm gathering.

And Fifthfiend, when you are defending an unpopular viewpoint, that doesn't make you a troll. When you have nothing to add to the debate but nasty comments about the other side, that does, in fact, make you a troll.

[Fenris]

Just an interesting aside.

Interesting, maybe. Off topic? Completely.

[The Wizard Who Did It]

With access to their fossil fuels, these countries could sell the surplus to buy generators that run on a fuel they can afford. They don't have this access, and so they can't.
And then got shafted in the end by big businesses in other countries.

I suppose my response to this point didn't have a lot to do with global warming, and a lot more to do with some of the follies in capitalistic policy.

Then again, that should have been apparent by my last two sentences.
Yeah, no. There's been work going on for many years to try and find alternative power sources, but no one can come up with a way to make them sustainable. The scientists are still working on a way to make things like wind and solar power viable on a large scale, but they're too costly and inefficient.
From everything I've read, that's mostly been bullshit fudged by big businesses to allow them to keep selling fuel and making money.

More specifically, the practical testing was purposely gimped to create tests that would show alternative methods to be inefficient.

It's similar to the auto industries purposely stunting their own growth to keep making a profit.
If it's an energy efficiency issue, let's make it an energy efficiency issue. I'm cool with that. I'm all for developing more energy sources. My issue is with global warming, and all the hysteria and scientific dishonesty and real human cost that goes along with it.
I'm glad we agree on this.
It's people like you who kill science, and I think you should have your computer taken away for this.
More specifically, it's people like me that make a politician. I guess I'm just beyond the point of believing that if you give people a pile of facts that they can actually make something out of it, so there has to be some sensationalist bullshit to provide a catalyst.

Also, your second sentence hardly makes any point you're making endearing. If you're going to insult my ideas, make the insult at least related to your complaint.


Also, just going to mention, that you're using some of the more bullshit online arguments I've ever seen. I mean, even Fifthfiend is looking more convincing, and he's just hollering and insulting people. You really shouldn't be confused as to why you're seen as a troll.

[Mirai Gen]

Just an interesting aside.
Bullshit. You specifically and intentionally said it to discredit the 'corrupt' scientists. Cripes - every time someone points something out and adds "I'm just saying," they are doing it ironically.
Our current rate of spending is forcing the world credit institutions to examine the prospect of lowering the US credit rating. The economic consequences would be astounding.
Except that the foremost thing the US Government can do in the cases of an economic slump is to create jobs that will be temporary on a several-year basis so they can be slowly withdrawn when the economy gets back on its feet.

Like, you know, green energy construction. Something that's temporary.

[Fifthfiend]

Godhand: Doesn't know what logical fallacies or trolls are.

Nice!

[Azisien]

This is a bit misleading. Oxygen in no way balances out CO2. There is no dichotomy there. The questions are, whether or not CO2 is a driver in climate change (it has never been shown to be so), whether mankind's emissions of CO2 are causing significant harm (in light of the previous answer, clearly not), and whether actions to counteract the release of CO2 have negative consequences (very much so).

I admit I worded it to seem like a perfect dichotomy. I could have expanded by saying the point is, we're putting out CO2 that no plant or bacteria is going to convert back to oxygen, so it's just going to sit there in the atmosphere. With natural sources of CO2, there ARE countering natural sinks.


As an illustration of just how fast the change is happening, show me shots of the polar ice caps every year, from, say, 2005 onward. Go on. The University of Illinois has them available on their site.

This University of Illinois?

Over the past several decades, the strongest warming in the Northern Hemisphere has indeed occurred in the Arctic, and sea ice has retreated farther than ever before in the historical record. Glaciers are retreating throughout the Arctic, and permafrost is thawing. Residents of the Arctic are experiencing shorter winters and longer summers, growing seasons are lengthening, and forest fires are becoming more widespread during drier summers.

Or this one?

Recent observed surface air temperature changes over the Arctic region are the largest in the world. Winter (DJF) rates of warming exceed 4 degrees C. over portions of the Arctic land areas (shown left). We provide Arctic temperature trends and changes of other primary surface variables (e.g., sea level pressure, precipitation, sea ice cover) archived in this climate summary, portions of which are published each year in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

(And the several papers I skimmed on the site by Dr. John Walsh confirmed an expected warming of both the Arctic and Antartica during the 21st century.

Or maybe we should just check on the best meteorologists in the world...

Except the University of Oklahoma School of Meteorology seems to focus almost all of its research efforts on the continental US, though a hundred times while browsing their website they have research focus on "effects of the US due to changing climate."


If we want to attack catastrophic effects of global warming we can just consider cloud cover. Models don't really know how clouds will react to climate change, and a few percentages extra or less clouds is enough to raise or lower the Albedo effect enough to negate/amplify CO2 effects.

EDIT:

Never mind I found the pictures at the Illinois website. The website where they catalogue the subsequent loss of Arctic sea ice every single year including 2009.

[Bob The Mercenary]

Interesting, maybe. Off topic? Completely.

This entire global warming chat has been off topic.

[GodHand Prime]

You really shouldn't be confused as to why you're seen as a troll.

I'm not. I'm really not. People want to believe this crap, and so hoot and scream and shake the branch whenever anybody questions it. I'm being pretty civil in my actual arguments. Your post is the only one where I actually said anything nasty about the contents, because you actively said you didn't care about the truth. For the rest, I'm just defending myself where people are attacking me for daring to disagree with them.

[Fenris]

This entire global warming chat has been off topic.

That's why we changed the topic.

[Mirai Gen]

This whole global warming thing is off topicIronically spawned from
Quick derail to dismantle anti-global warming thought.

For the rest, I'm just defending myself where people are attacking me for daring to disagree with them.
*raises hand*

[Bob The Mercenary]

That's why we changed the topic.

Noted.

Why do I keep fucking doing that?

I'm just going to start spoiler texting everything I type, then curl up in a fetal position under my bed.

But honestly, Fifth started this whole troll war...thing.

[Fifthfiend]

That's why we changed the topic.

I wanted to change it to reflect that it was now a Godhand party but Fenris got upset.:(

[Fenris]

This party's over man. Somebody's pregnant, the family's favorite vase is broken, and there's vomit all over the bathroom floor.

And we all know who to blame. Bob. :shifty:

[Fifthfiend]

Dude you know a Godhand party goes all night long.

[Bob The Mercenary]

And we all know who to blame. Bob. :shifty:

I love you too.

[Kurosen]

I'm being pretty civil in my actual arguments.
Shine on, you crazy diamond.

[Lost in Time]

This is now my favorite Primetime show. I really hope that the execs don't go and can this show because it is wonderfully written.

[GodHand Prime]

I think I'm done here. Pretty disgusted. But before I go, check out Cryosphere Today (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/) for how much the polar ice caps grew in the past few years of unprecedented "warming." And how global warming is so hard on food production. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5525933/Crops-under-stress-as-temperatures-fall.html) That's with a few moments' effort. If you bothered, you could find more. A lot more.

[Fenris]

I love you too.

We are BFF so hard it hurts.

[Bob The Mercenary]

We are BFF so hard it hurts.

Only the first time, then I got used to it.

[Fifthfiend]

People want to believe this crap

Yeah I want to believe that the modern conveniences I enjoy are killing the world, I get so much out of that belief.

EDIT: Oh shit I just checked the mailbox and found my BELIEVING IN GLOBAL WARMING paycheck. The worldwide conspiracy rocks!

I think I'm done here.

http://i606.photobucket.com/albums/tt148/fifthfiend/emoticons/ohdear.gifhttp://i606.photobucket.com/albums/tt148/fifthfiend/emoticons/ohdear.gifhttp://i606.photobucket.com/albums/tt148/fifthfiend/emoticons/ohdear.gif

Nooooooooooooooooo please baby come back, I swear it'll be different this time, honest I promise you honey I can change, no really baby please you just gotta come back honey I NEEEEEEEEEED UUUUUUUUUUUU

[Mirai Gen]

I think I'm done here. Pretty disgusted. But before I go, check out Cryosphere Today (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/) for how much the polar ice caps grew in the past few years of unprecedented "warming." And how global warming is so hard on food production. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5525933/Crops-under-stress-as-temperatures-fall.html) That's with a few moments' effort. If you bothered, you could find more. A lot more.

Counterpoint, my area is going through a drought, and let's take a look at some predictions for the future, while we're at it. (http://www.thinkandask.com/news/californiaweather.html)

Ecosystems falling doesn't mean everything gets warmer, it means the climate is thrown out of whack.

[Marc v4.0]

Ok, see, maybe it's your perspective on Global Warming that makes Godhand Prime appear as a Troll or not, cause I don't completely buy into Global Warming as it's sensationalized and it appears to me as if people are just jumping all over him while the Mods activly troll him. I thought I was in the Discussions section, not General...

And dammit, I should leave it alone but...

When you have nothing to add to the debate but nasty comments about the other side, that does, in fact, make you a troll.

That's completely right

[Azisien]

I think I'm done here. Pretty disgusted. But before I go, check out Cryosphere Today (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/) for how much the polar ice caps grew in the past few years of unprecedented "warming." And how global warming is so hard on food production. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5525933/Crops-under-stress-as-temperatures-fall.html) That's with a few moments' effort. If you bothered, you could find more. A lot more.

Yeah guys lets go to Cryosphere today! It will settle this!

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.jpg

If you look to your left you can see the oscillations in sea ice are smaller. And on our right, not only are the oscillations a bit larger, but that sea ice area is a solid million or so square kilometers less than 20 years ago. (DON'T WORRY THOUGH GUYS THATS ONLY LIKE 7% OF ALL THE ARCTIC ICE IN ROUGHLY THE SPAN OF OUR LIFETIMES. I'M NOT IT'S NOT A BIG DEAL.)

Yeah, on the coldest days of the year in 2008 and 2009 there was more ice than 2005-2007. Presumably that's where your point is coming from. But then on the warmest days of 2007-2008 OH MY GOD WHERE IS OUR ICE?

[Fenris]

That's completely right

That is a correct definition of a troll, however that is not what fifthfiend was doing.

He was also bringing up legitimate points and evidence in addition to adding nasty comments about the other side, which really makes all the difference.

[Aerozord]

this is page limit, off topic, and degenerated into a flame war. I'm suprised its still open

[Azisien]

Wow I wasn't really reading posts other than mine or Godhand's but damn, damn....

...My hour of research just feels so wasted.

EDIT: Hey cool.

Our ice seems fine. (http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/arctic-sea-ice-minimum-extent-in-september-1982-and-2008)

[Marc v4.0]

He was also bringing up legitimate points and evidence in addition to adding nasty comments about the other side, which really makes all the difference.

He was, yes, but that doesn't really change the fact that he was adding nasty comments about the other side when the other side wasn't doing it.

You can yell facts and vulgarities at everyone you like all day, but It's fairly reasonable that they're going to get ignored because of the vulgarities

[Fenris]

Your move, troll.

No dice.

e: And that was just from memory, I'm sure there are more in there but I don't really care enough to dig through all of his posts and comb through his rhetoric to find them.

[Bob The Mercenary]

Oh come on, he did that out of frustration.

Fifthfiend just does it...because...always...

[Fenris]

Better than goin' Nuklear, amirite?

PS propoganda

[Marc v4.0]

No dice.

I'd agree if he hadn't aready been called a troll and ridiculed already in what's supposed to be a section for actual serious and responsible discussion.

Yes, this is NPF lol wacky zany woo, but some of us do take this space as it is intended.

[Fifthfiend]

Ok, see, maybe it's your perspective on Global Warming that makes Godhand Prime appear as a Troll or not, cause I don't completely buy into Global Warming as it's sensationalized and it appears to me as if people are just jumping all over him while the Mods activly troll him. I thought I was in the Discussions section, not General...

And dammit, I should leave it alone but...



That's completely right

Jesus Christ, Marc.

Look for everyone who doesn't get what's going on here it's not your perspective of global warming that makes someone appear as a troll, it's Godhand making plain-ass ridiculous arguments about the Big Business Global Warming Promotion Conspiracy that make him a troll, that shit is seriously on the same fucking level as if someone joined here and started posting about the secret Nigerian citizen Barack Hussein Obama's plan to make girls get teen pregnant so that Zombie Doctor Tiller can make them all get abortions. If you question the scientific consensus or whatever then I am personally not trying to stop you but you seriously need to do fucking better than "THE GOVERMIT IS PAYIN' EVERYBODY TO LIE".

Sorry anyone who thinks that slapping a pseudo-reasonable veneer on top of your shitpile of dishonest bad-faith arguments, ludicrous claims and flat-out fallacies (I am EDUCATED in a RELATED FIELD HURR HURR) is enough to convince people you aren't trolling but the moderators of this forum aren't that fucking stupid and won't pretend otherwise.

[Azisien]

I'd agree if he hadn't aready been called a troll and ridiculed already in what's supposed to be a section for actual serious and responsible discussion.

Yes, this is NPF lol wacky zany woo, but some of us do take this space as it is intended.

I will say, given how hard some of us got slammed for considerably less trolling/flaming, that the thread now seems like a blasphemy.

Damn it! My wonderful figures!

(I am EDUCATED in a RELATED FIELD HUFF PUFF)

Hahaha, now that you put it that way I think its actually an empty logical fallacy since he didn't even back it up.

[Bob The Mercenary]

It has truly been a sight to behold.

|---------------|-------------------|--------------------weeeeeeeee
page limit______flame war_____discussion of fault

[Fifthfiend]

I will say, given how hard some of us got slammed for considerably less trolling/flaming, that the thread now seems like a blasphemy.

That was like a zillion years ago when I was trying to make everyone in discussion be nice to each other which didn't work and drove me basically insane. I did a thing sayin' I wasn't doing that anymore which was stickied for like a year until Meister took it down. Haven't rewritten the discussion rules to match that yet because I turbo-suck at my job.

[Marc v4.0]

Jesus Christ, Marc.

Look for everyone who doesn't get what's going on here it's not your perspective of global warming that makes someone appear as a troll, it's Godhand making plain-ass ridiculous arguments about the Big Business Global Warming Promotion Conspiracy that make him a troll, that shit is seriously on the same fucking level as if someone joined here and started posting about the secret Nigerian citizen Barack Hussein Obama's plan to make girls get teen pregnant so that Zombie Doctor Tiller can make them all get abortions. If you question the scientific consensus or whatever then I am personally not trying to stop you but you seriously need to do fucking better than "THE GOVERMIT IS PAYIN' EVERYBODY TO LIE".

Sorry anyone who thinks that slapping a pseudo-reasonable veneer on top of your shitpile of dishonest bad-faith arguments, ludicrous claims and flat-out fallacies (I am EDUCATED in a RELATED FIELD HURR HURR) is enough to convince people you aren't trolling but the moderators of this forum aren't that fucking stupid and won't pretend otherwise.

Trolling is an intent, I really think he believes all that crazy "the government is the bad guy" crap he's spouting.

[Fifthfiend]

Well that's, um, super.

[Azisien]

That was like a zillion years ago when I was trying to make everyone in discussion be nice to each other which didn't work and drove me basically insane. I did a thing sayin' I wasn't doing that anymore which was stickied for like a year until Meister took it down. Haven't rewritten the discussion rules to match that yet because I turbo-suck at my job.

IT MAY BE A ZILLION YEARS AGO TO YOU BUT I LIVE WITH THAT BIG FAT RED INFRACTION EVERY SINGLE DAY ON MY ONCE BEAUTIFUL CONTROL PANEL!! :gonk:

[Mirai Gen]

Trolling is an intent, I really think he believes all that crazy "the government is the bad guy" crap he's spouting.

So does Rush Limbaugh, like in the beginning of this very thread, and he's still totally trolling.

[Bob The Mercenary]

IT MAY BE A ZILLION YEARS AGO TO YOU BUT I LIVE WITH THAT BIG FAT RED INFRACTION EVERY SINGLE DAY ON MY ONCE BEAUTIFUL CONTROL PANEL!! :gonk:

It's okay man. It was a long time ago. It expired. There there. *pats*

Though my usercp also has a zit.

[Fifthfiend]

IT MAY BE A ZILLION YEARS AGO TO YOU BUT I LIVE WITH THAT BIG FAT RED INFRACTION EVERY SINGLE DAY ON MY ONCE BEAUTIFUL CONTROL PANEL!! :gonk:

Fair enough, deleted.

[Azisien]

It's okay man. It was a long time ago. It expired. There there. *pats*

It's okay....IT'S OKAY?!?!?! I'LL TELL YOU WHAT OK--..........

Fair enough, deleted.

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c156/CaptMorgan452/wuv.jpg

[Marc v4.0]

So does Rush Limbaugh, like in the beginning of this very thread, and he's still totally trolling.

Damn you...needs to be a Rush Limbaugh Clause...

edit: like Santa Claus but instead of presents he leaves you stockings full of hateful shit that's also been regurgitated

[Nique]

Hey that was fun.

So.

I'm never linking anything from Rush Limbaugh again.

You know. Just FYI.

[Bob The Mercenary]

like Santa Claus but instead of presents he leaves you stockings full of hateful shit that's also been regurgitated

You mean...that's not normal? :(

[Fenris]

Hey that was fun.

So.

I'm never linking anything from Rush Limbaugh again.

You know. Just FYI.

Success!

[Fifthfiend]

I for serious am gonna update the forum trolling definition to make it clear but as far as I am concerned there is a flat level of ridiculous shit that if you are willing to cling to it even thought it falls apart on even the slightest examination (while claiming to have Relevant Degrees In Your Field, natch) and repeat it in the face of all rebuttal then you are either trolling or just so bad at thinking that you need to not post here until you learn how.

Hey that was fun.

So.

I'm never linking anything from Rush Limbaugh again.

You know. Just FYI.

Shit I am going to rep you for doing it and bringing Godhand into all of our lives.

[The Wizard Who Did It]

It's people like you who kill science, and I think you should have your computer taken away for this.
I decided to stop going back and looking at specific cases where he insulted people (after only a page, sadface).

The thing is that he wasn't so much a troll for insults. He was a troll for purposely ignoring a few good points and having all of his arguments riddled with logical fallacies ("I have a degree" was my favorite).

[Kim]

He most certainly does not have the power of the God Hand, that much is sure.

[Nique]

Maybe I'm late with this but I just don't see why it's a political issue at all - Sesame Street, Ad Council commercials, and a gajillion other shows have been programming into use 'Don't pollute! Don't waste water! Ride your bike instead! Plant a tree!' because we already know this stuff is good for the environment (or, rather, not bad for the environment). Most steps to reverse global warming are just extensions of that mentality, aren't they?

Even if nothing significant is happening to the earth, I personally don't really want to be breathing smog eh?

[Fenris]

Maybe I'm late with this but I just don't see why it's a political issue at all - Sesame Street, Ad Council commercials, and a gajillion other shows have been programming into use 'Don't pollute! Don't waste water! Ride your bike instead! Plant a tree!' because we already know this stuff is good for the environment (or, rather, not bad for the environment). Most steps to reverse global warming are just extensions of that mentality, aren't they?

Even if nothing significant is happening to the earth, I personally don't really want to be breathing smog eh?

How much does the government pay you spew such lies?

I have a relevant degree in a field that during the course of the studies required to obtain said degree I learned that breathing smog cures cancer and riding bikes increases the rate of foreign prostitution.

[Fifthfiend]

Anyway pagelimit 2x means thread's over. Anyone who wants to start a new thread on the holocaust museum thing can do that . If you want to start a new global warming thread go ahead and do that too and I'll even promise not to feed the trolls.

[Fenris]

You're just closing the thread from the truth!

[Fifthfiend]

You're just saying that because of your FOREIGN WHORES.

[Fenris]

What can I say, I brought burritos. http://i606.photobucket.com/albums/tt148/fifthfiend/emoticons/smug.gif

[Fifthfiend]

Oh baby, to the bathroom.

[Fenris]

You mean the one Bob vomitted all over during the GodHand Party?

Last one in's a rotten egg! http://i606.photobucket.com/albums/tt148/fifthfiend/emoticons/smug.gif