TV Schedule

Global Warming Doomsday Called Off

  2. Alphaholic
  3. related topics
This movie (not a clip) broadcast by Reason TV (not me) critiques the widespread and policitized doomsdayist viewpoint centered around the negative effects of global warming. The gist of the movie is that much of today's political motivation to reduce greenhouse emissions is based on poorly programmed computer modeling. The movie states that the models are flawed because those who programmed them had incomplete knowledge of how global climate change really works. Scientists in the movie take aim at the widely accepted "hockey stick" depiction of the recent spike in global temperature, claim that sea levels are actually dropping, not rising, and tell us that, when measured from the surrounding atmosphere, global temperature fluctuations are not as dramatic as those measured on the ground, where temperatures may be influenced by heat relfected by surrounding buildings and pavement.
Alphaholic

16 responses // Global Warming Doomsday Called Off

  • If sea levels are dropping would you ask them why the fishing village in Alaska flooded and had to be moved to higher ground? Is Alaska sinking? Go take a look at Glacier National Park and tell me why it is caving off into the sea. The vast majority of reputable scientist say that we have a huge problem with global warming. The oil companies hired some not so reputable scientists to say "No Problem" for big bucks. I'd check to see who the producer of that film actually works for.
    Marilynn_Murray
    1 response to this
  • Actually, Marilynn, there are plenty of highly reputable scientists who don't agree that climate change is going to be as catastrophic as many of the activists, including our friend Al, would suggest. The "near universal consensus" among scientists is that CO2 levels in the atmosphere ARE rising, but there is still widespread disagreement over what the effects will be, and not everyone agrees that coastal cities are all going to be under water by 2012.

    I'm a skeptic to the core, and I've done independent research into this issue because if what the activists are saying is true, this really IS the most important issue of our time and I'd like to have an informed opinion about it. Unfortunately, the more you look into it, the more confused you become because the fact is WE JUST DON'T KNOW what's going to happen.

    Everyone conducts their experiments with computer models and comes up with the results that they're looking for. If they want to make headlines, they fiddle the knobs so that it looks like the world is coming to an end. If they want to make people believe there's nothing wrong, they fiddle the knobs to make it look like no big deal. Some of them are paid by the oil companies, and some are paid by organizations who profit from donations by people who really think a calamity is coming. Some of them ARE interested in the truth, and those are the people who admit that we can't be sure about the accuracy of any of these results.

    But with all that being said, and as skeptical as I am, it just doesn't make sense to do nothing about it. If we take drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and it turns out the problem wasn't so dramatic, at least future generations will have cleaner air to breathe. If, on the other hand, we don't do anything and it turns out the activists were right, then we could be looking at the worst catastrophe in human history.
    Kemstone
  • Our air if filthy, our water is polluted Why not go with the global warming warnings even if you don't believe it. If nothing else maybe we could clean up some of the mess we've made. I'd love for us to come up with a better idea than oil, if for no other reason, that we wouldn't be attacking other countries for their oil.
    Marilynn_Murray
  • Exactly, MM!

    These naysayers grab one or two coincidences and then develop an untested and convoluted theory that would take years to disprove - it is the same way the Bush Administration took control of the country's freedoms, destroyed civil rights and engineered the Iraq War profiteering by their cronies at the expense of middle class America.

    DOH! ya really think maybe some reflected heat is spiking temperatures near more inhabited areas?

    That is such a great argument since we didn't keep middle atmosphere temperature records on a regular basis and would have nothing from the past with which to compare them.

    Alphaholic, maybe you need to grow a brain and start wondering HOW significant an impact 6 BILLION people, their waste, power consumption and development is having on the planet.

    Trying to formulate theories about temperature "bounce-back" from more populated areas, especially when they have no means of verification is a trick some people might fall for out there in Radio Rightyland.

    But you have to take into consideration that some of those same listeners actually PAY to go see convicted felons like Oliver North speak. Not only that, but many of them can still hold down lunch when Sean Insanity refers to him as a "Great American" but to hang your hat on those type theories is just mirroring the lack of depth Lush Rimbaugh's listeners are famous for.

    You sound like Lush Rimbaugh screeching that Mt. Pinatubo spewed more CO2 into the air than man-made sources.

    You know what? I agree with part of what Kemstone said - Let's say that were true....Why the freaking Hell would it be alright for us to EXACERBATE those effects?

    Short answer - IT'S NOT ALRIGHT.

    Go back and get a job at the EIB Network where the host is the only one allowed to take enough Oxycontin for it to cause hearing loss and then lie about both being a druggie and a paid denouncer of Climate Change.

    If you want to post nonsense here, most of us who think a little are going to require you to at least answer MM's question and others like them before you plow ahead.

    So WHY ARE the Inuit fishing village's homes and buildings along the Alaskan Coastline being destroyed by rising sea levels with each year's sea level going higher than the previous year's? Did Lush Rimbaugh jump his fat behind into the ocean and cause the sea level to rise?

    Why don't you start keeping the temperature records at the 10,000 foot level on that Republican "beanstalk" you seem to be broadcasting from?
    Inofuilwell
  • By the way, Kemstone, I don't know too many people predicting cities will be underwater by 2012 - the date of 2012 is MOSTLY seen published with the earliest possible "Point of No Return" or "Tipping Point" where Climate Change becomes either malignant or irreversible.

    I tend to want to err on the the side of caution so IF the 2012 date IS the tipping point, I want to start reversing the trend NOW unlike Emperor Bush who wants Detroit, "Big Oil" and all the coal plants to make as much money as they can for the next 15 years.

    That is what happens when you elect two inherently EVIL men to do the bidding of corporate America. All they care about is money and power and to HELL with everything else.
    Inofuilwell
    1 response to this
  • "Actually, Marilynn, there are plenty of highly reputable scientists who don't agree that climate change is going to be as catastrophic as many of the activists"

    Ok, name some of these highly reputable scientists and back it up with some links.
    SamuraiDave
  • SamuraiDave, Take another hike.
    Marilynn_Murray
  • It's funny how, despite my best efforts to be objective in writing my description of what the movie is and what claims the movie makes, I somehow was erroneously construed to be the person making the claims.

    I didn't make any claims, however, so to those who think I did, I urge you to reread the paragraph. In keeping in line with my contention that I did not make any claims about global warming (I only told you what scientists in the movie claim), I don't owe anyone any explanation relative to any claim made on global warming (because I haven't made one) Furthermore, since I have not made a claim on global warming, it would be a leap of logic to infer my stance on the subject, one way or the other. I will say that as a student of ecology, I would agree with inofulwell's belief that 6 billion megafaunal organisms cannot exist without impacting their surroundings. The measure of the impact we as humans have on our environment will no doubt be translated as punctuated equilibrium in the evolution of life on Earth. We'll only be able to decipher our role in the world ecology a couple thousand years from now, and I'd be happy to revisit the issue then.
    Rush Limbaugh can ingest all the oxycontin he wants; I won't lose sleep over it. And whatever oxycontin I may ingest, if I choose to ingest it, should be of no consequence to anyone but myself. My "Republican beanstalk" happens to be a Libertarian magazine. Libertarianism is the Bhuddism of politics; it's for people who believe decisions should be based on truth, not on whose team you're on. If you have a comeback to that, then you have a comeback to thinking for yourself. I feel a slight sting when it comes to being labeled a Republican, because I've made a conscious effort not to be one. At least nobody's accused me of something as foul as being a Democrat :).
    Alphaholic
  • (1) It won't even take 100 years for us to know what impact we've had on climate change.

    (2) Libertarianism is okay AFTER you have defeated the forces of Fascism and Socialism that seem to want to call the Republicans and the Democrats their people respectively.

    Until then, people need a well-intentioned government with far above average checks and balances to defeat those who would conquer society on either's behalf.

    Right now, K Street and hundreds of multi-national corporations have wrested control of legislative and executive powers and in so doing have written their own laws and lax regulations.

    A Libertarian like Ron Paul focused on stripping away what little regulatory authority government has left would be the WORST thing that could happen to this country.

    At least a Republican leader would quickly cause a peasant's revolt if he continued with the same course Bush charted. I shufdder to think of the carnage should a good ol' "Reagan Republican" continue to practice "trickle down economics".

    No matter how idealistic Libertarians sound, they always forget that when either the Socialist leaning Democrats or the Fascist leaning Republicans stray too far, there is a need for Government to wage war on them through the election process. The people at that point lack the weapons and strength needed to prevail against such powerful adversaries.

    The pendulum has become quite large and uncontrollable and as long as the goal of either party is CONTINUED dominance, the people are the losers.

    At this point there are many industries that have outgrown the public's ability to fight them with the free market tools at their disposal.

    With companies like Exxon whose sales exceed all but a few of the GDP's of many of the world's nations, it is time to make their voice no more powerful than that of a single voter's.

    When K Street, the auto-makers, the energy conglomerates, financial institutions, insurance companies, agri-businesses, defense contractors and pharmaceutical giants, among others, stop running this country, I'll give libertarianism a test drive.

    However, right now, it and the deregulation it embraces, embody the most destructive political choice we could possibly make.
    Inofuilwell
    1 response to this
  • "SamuraiDave, Take another hike."

    Wow, terribly mature but I wasn't talking to you
    SamuraiDave
  • SamuraiDave, The hell you weren't, now get your boots on.
    Marilynn_Murray
  • listen, I was talking to kemstone who said there were reputable scientists who disagreed with the results of global warming - notice the quotation marks and the fact it is directly cut and pasted from kemstone's post. Your comment take "another" hike doesn't make much sense BTW. You need to switch to decaf or get better reading glasses.
    SamuraiDave
  • I could spend hours doing on-line research to provide you names of actual scientists who say global warming may not be as bad as some environmentalists are saying, but that would be pointless when you can just do a google search and read the facts for yourself. I did that in hopes of finding evidence to the contrary: that global warming IS a dire problem, because I wanted some hard facts to back me up when I tell people that civilization is coming to an end (which it is, whether global warming is real or not). But what I found is that there's a lot of speculation and misinformation going around on both sides of the issue, and the only thing nearly everyone agrees on is that we really don't know.

    But if you really want a link, try this very comprehensive study of the issue: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/global_warming.html

    That's all the research I'm willing to do for a website like this. If you'd like to spend a few hours researching names of scientists who DO think it's going to be a catastrophe, I'd love to hear your results, but I suspect that while you sift through the mountains upon mountains of information you'll find that they are NOT all saying that, which is the only point I was trying to make.

    I'm not going to exert the effort of finding sites that are skeptical of global warming when I personally think that global warming IS real and was only trying to point out that there ARE reasons to be skeptical about it. But if anyone bothered to read the end of my post, and I think at least one of you did, you'd see that I still think we should make an aggressive effort to stop greenhouse gas emissions because in this issue the benefit of the doubt should obviously go to the environmentalists and not the polluters.

    There's no harm in conceding some points to the opposition when the main conclusion remains the same. Whether or not global warming is going to be catastrophic--which IS in dispute--we can't just do nothing and hope the skeptics are right.
    Kemstone

Add your response

Login/Registration is required to add a response.